Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 08:00 UTC

agentgateway / website

Official website for agentgateway

HTMLApache-2.0★ 16 stars⑂ 65 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

agentgateway/website holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

81
overall / 100
Excellent

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

81
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AgentgatewayOrganization
167 followers4 public repossince Apr 2025

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/agentgateway/websitev1.5.0-622 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

98Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume4,637 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year4,637
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year48

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 22 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~33.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv1.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases33.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
19.1/60Stars16 stars
15.1/25Forks65 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks65
stars16
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth67 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled67
top_contributor_share0.442
How it's scored
39.8/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance840/891 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance3/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs840
open_issues8
closed_issues147
prs_merged_7d14
prs_decided_7d14
prs_merged_30d42
prs_decided_30d45
issue_closed_ratio0.948
closed_unmerged_prs51
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16/25Owner reach167 followers of agentgateway
7.9/25Track record4 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers167
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginagentgateway
public_repos4
account_age_days514

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 22 days ago
20/20Version history6 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/agentgateway/website
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish22

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://agentgateway.dev/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://agentgateway.dev/
docs_sitehttps://agentgateway.dev/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
1/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsassets/agw-docs/pages/agentgateway/llm/api-types/gemini.md, assets/agw-docs/pages/agentgateway/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.0.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.1.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.2.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.3.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.4.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/2.2.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/latest/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/latest/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/main/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/main/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/latest/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/latest/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/latest/integrations/mcp/clients/claude.md, content/docs/standalone/main/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/main/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/main/integrations/mcp/clients/claude.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://agentgateway.dev/llms.txt)
29.3/40Legible commit history55 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://agentgateway.dev/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.55
agent_instruction_filesassets/agw-docs/pages/agentgateway/llm/api-types/gemini.md, assets/agw-docs/pages/agentgateway/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.0.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.1.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.2.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.3.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/1.4.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/2.2.x/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/latest/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/latest/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/main/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/kubernetes/main/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/latest/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/latest/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/latest/integrations/mcp/clients/claude.md, content/docs/standalone/main/documentation/llm/api-types/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/main/integrations/llm/providers/gemini.md, content/docs/standalone/main/integrations/mcp/clients/claude.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,190
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.06
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod, scripts/kubespec-render/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeHTML without a type-check config
53.9/55Manageable file sizes1/51 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes65,373
source_files_sampled51
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

16GitHub stars
67contributors
4,637commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
2bus factor
8open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • 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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 65 ⇿
0Stars
65Forks
7Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

01325385063756432025-072026-022026-09
Major 1Minor 6Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-19 07:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
8CI-Tests8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@tailwindcss/typography^0.5.10package.json
npmtailwindcss^3.3.5package.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsGo.