Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-26 05:20 UTC

alphaXiv / OpenResearch

Turn your coding agents into research agents

Rust · TypeScriptMIT★ 7,574 stars⑂ 506 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceWeb interfaceDesktop applicationCommand-line toolhow this is determined

alphaXiv/OpenResearch holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

alphaXivOrganization
376 followers119 public repossince Dec 2023

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 565 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year565
human_commit_share0.79
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.2.21
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases2.7

Community & Adoption

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

75Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

90Excellent
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 7,574 stars
22.5/25Forks — 506 forks
7.5/15Watchers — 23 watchers
Inputs used
forks506
stars7,574
watchers23
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.527

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate
How it's scored
25.1/42Issue resolution — 60% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 526/575 decided PRs merged
1.9/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs526
open_issues50
closed_issues74
prs_merged_7d38
prs_decided_7d45
prs_merged_30d44
prs_decided_30d52
issue_closed_ratio0.597
closed_unmerged_prs49
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d7

Ownership & stewardship

67Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.5/25Owner reach — 376 followers of alphaXiv
18.7/25Track record — 119 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers376
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginalphaXiv
public_repos119
account_age_days1,047

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — clippy.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://openresearch.sh/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://openresearch.sh/
docs_sitehttps://openresearch.sh/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

33At Risk
How it's scored
5.2/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 158 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 78 of 79 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.987
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,029

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

79Good
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, windows/launcher/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — clippy.toml
11/11Static type checking — ui/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 61 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsui/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.61
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, windows/launcher/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

97Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
51.8/55Manageable file sizes — 27/462 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes441,969
source_files_sampled462
oversized_source_files27

Key facts

7,574GitHub stars
20contributors
565commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
50open issues
crates.io, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'openresearch-cli' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'openresearch-launcher' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 506 ⇿
0Stars
506Forks
92Releases

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.

0100200300400500600505522026-072026-092026-10
Major 0Minor 1Patch 91
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-26 05:19 UTC

7Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities158 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 59
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iotokio1Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio-util0.7Cargo.toml
crates.ioagent-client-protocol2.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest0.12Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1Cargo.toml
crates.iotoml0.8Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow1Cargo.toml
crates.iodirs5Cargo.toml
crates.ioglob0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iorusqlite0.32Cargo.toml
crates.iourlencoding2Cargo.toml
crates.iohttpdate1Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid1Cargo.toml
crates.iosemver1Cargo.toml
crates.iofd-lock4Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22Cargo.toml
crates.iozip2Cargo.toml
crates.ioaxum0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper1Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper-util0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iorust-embed8Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures0.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioportable-pty0.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioasync-trait0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioaes0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iocbc0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iopbkdf20.12Cargo.toml
crates.iosha10.10Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio-tungstenite0.29Cargo.toml
crates.iosame-file1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioroxmltree0.21Cargo.toml
npm@clo/react-markdownjsr:1.1.1ui/package.json
npm@inlang/paraglide-js^2.25.0ui/package.json
npm@tanstack/react-query^5.102.8ui/package.json
npm@tanstack/react-router^1.170.32ui/package.json
npm@tanstack/react-virtual^3.14.11ui/package.json
npm@xterm/addon-fit^0.10.0ui/package.json
npm@xterm/addon-web-links^0.11.0ui/package.json
npm@xterm/xterm^5.5.0ui/package.json
npm@xyflow/react^12.6.0ui/package.json
npmkatex^0.16.22ui/package.json
npmlucide-react^1.23.0ui/package.json
npmpdfjs-dist6.3.289ui/package.json
npmreact^19.1.0ui/package.json
npmreact-diff-view^3.3.3ui/package.json
npmreact-dom^19.1.0ui/package.json
npmreact-markdown^10.1.0ui/package.json
npmrefractor^5.0.0ui/package.json
npmrehype-katex^7.0.1ui/package.json
npmremark-gfm^4.0.1ui/package.json
npmremark-math^6.0.0ui/package.json
npmremark-parse11.0.0ui/package.json
npmremark-rehype11.1.2ui/package.json
npmsonner^2.0.8ui/package.json
npmtailwind-merge^3.6.0ui/package.json
npmunified11.0.5ui/package.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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with alphaXiv/OpenResearch. Read them side by side →

100scalar/scalarScalar is an open-source API platform:　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　🌐 Modern REST API Client　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　📖 Beautiful API References　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　✨ 1st-Class OpenAPI/Swagger SupportExceptional100microsoft/onnxruntimeONNX Runtime: cross-platform, high performance ML inferencing and training acceleratorExceptional100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional99microsoft/foundry-localExceptional99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional

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 statistics.