# VisionVerse/Awesome-RGBT — health index 4/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository VisionVerse/Awesome-RGBT by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 4 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/VisionVerse/Awesome-RGBT
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/VisionVerse/Awesome-RGBT
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/VisionVerse/Awesome-RGBT/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/v/VisionVerse/Awesome-RGBT.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-02
- Methodology: metrics 2.3.1, report schema 0.29.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 20/100 | At Risk |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 48/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 43/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 25/100 | At Risk |
| Security | 16% | 5/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 1/100 | Critical |

The weighted overall 28 is calibrated to 22 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | RGB-T Fusion, RGB-T SOD, RGB-T Vehicle Detection, RGB-T Crowd Counting, RGB-T Pedestrian Detection, RGB-T Semantic Segmeantaion, RGB-T Tracking |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 232 |
| Forks | 6 |
| Created | 2023-12-28 |
| Last push | 2026-03-27 |
| Commits (last year) | 32 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | rgb-thermal, rgbt-salient-object-detection, rgbt-semantic-segmentation, rgbt-pedestrian-detection, multispectral-pedestrian-detection, rgbt-crowd-counting, rgbt-vehicle-detection, rgbt-tracking |

## Vitality — 20/100 (At Risk)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 32/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 9.9 / 36 | last push 128 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 9 / 36 | 13/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 13.6 / 18 | 32 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | no releases |
| Release cadence | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 128 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 48/100 (Weak)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 47/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 38.3 / 60 | 232 stars |
| Forks | partial | 5.8 / 25 | 6 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 3.3 / 15 | 5 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 43/100 (Weak)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 24/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 9.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 56% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 5.4 / 13.5 | 4 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | not met | 0 / 10 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 67/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 1/1 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 42/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 9.2 / 25 | 18 followers of VisionVerse |
| Track record | partial | 14.5 / 25 | 18 public repos, account ~2 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 25/100 (At Risk)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | no pull request found |

### Documentation — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 8 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 5/100 (Critical)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 5/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 2.5 | no pull request found |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | not met | 0 / 2.5 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | no SAST tool detected |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 20/100 (At Risk)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | partial | 20 / 100 | North Korea: owner (1); North Korea: top_contributor (1) |

## AI Readiness — 1/100 (Critical)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | not met | 0 / 40 | 0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

## Collection warnings

- Language breakdown unavailable
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt