Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 10:02 UTC

ansible / ansible-documentation

Ansible community documentation

PythonGPL-3.0★ 181 stars⑂ 852 forkssince Jun 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

ansible/ansible-documentation holds a health index of 98 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (76/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 7 contributors account for most of its recent work.

98
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

98
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 87 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AnsibleOrganization · verified domain
3,757 followers306 public repossince Mar 2012

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?

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 287 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year287
human_commit_share0.63
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year51
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 47 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~15.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tagv2.20.9
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases15.6
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?

76Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.6/60Stars — 181 stars
24.4/25Forks — 852 forks
7/15Watchers — 19 watchers
Inputs used
forks852
stars181
watchers19
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

94Exceptional · 23% of overall
How it's scored
51.3/54Bus factor — 7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 14% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 44 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor7
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.136
How it's scored
32.6/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance — 3,441/3,588 decided PRs merged
11.1/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 6/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs3,441
open_issues78
closed_issues268
prs_merged_7d11
prs_decided_7d12
prs_merged_30d19
prs_decided_30d20
issue_closed_ratio0.775
closed_unmerged_prs147
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d6
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,757 followers of ansible
25/25Track record — 306 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,757
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginansible
public_repos306
account_age_days5,309

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 13 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — ruff.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://docs.ansible.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsansible, documentation
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.ansible.com/
docs_sitehttps://docs.ansible.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

78Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 44 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate7.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages106
unassessed_packages6
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 106 resolved dependencies against OSV. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 63 of 63 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes336
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/docsite/Makefile, noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — ruff.toml
11/11Static type checking — .mypy.ini, hacking/pr_labeler/pr_labeler/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/docsite/Makefile, noxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs.mypy.ini, hacking/pr_labeler/pr_labeler/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.07
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (.mypy.ini, hacking/pr_labeler/pr_labeler/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/51 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes16,914
source_files_sampled51
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

181GitHub stars
99contributors
287commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
47releases
7bus factor
78open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'ad-internal-pr-labeler' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 852 ⇿
0Stars
852Forks
47Releases

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.

02004006008001,00084582023-062025-012026-09
Major 0Minor 3Patch 44

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 10:02 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
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
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 44 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 112

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 112 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiofiles25.1.0indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.7.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.5indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIansible-pygments0.1.2indirect
PyPIantsibull-changelog0.35.1indirect
PyPIantsibull-core3.6.0indirect
PyPIantsibull-docs2.27.0indirect
PyPIantsibull-docs-parser1.2.3indirect
PyPIantsibull-docutils1.4.0indirect
PyPIantsibull-docutils1.4.1indirect
PyPIantsibull-fileutils1.5.3indirect
PyPIargcomplete3.7.2indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.8.0indirect
PyPIasyncio-pool0.6.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbig0.14indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIbuild1.6.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIcodeowners0.9.0indirect
PyPIcodespell2.4.3indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcolorlog6.12.0indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.1indirect
PyPIdependency-groups1.3.2indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIdocutils0.23indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.4indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.61indirect
PyPIhumanize4.16.0indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.1indirect
PyPIisort9.0.1indirect
PyPIjinja2—indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.15.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImultidict6.8.0indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInox2026.8.17indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIperky0.10indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.5indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpygithub2.10.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpynacl1.6.2indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.0indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIresolvelib—indirect
PyPIresolvelib1.2.1indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIrstcheck—indirect
PyPIrstcheck3.5.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.5indirect
PyPIsemantic-version2.10.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.3indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-ansible-theme0.10.4indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-intl2.4.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-page1.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-reredirects1.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItwiggy0.5.1indirect
PyPItyper0.27.2indirect
PyPItyper-slim0.24.0indirect
PyPItypes-docutils0.23.0.20260827indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.4indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuv0.12.7indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.7indirect
PyPIyamllint1.38.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.24.5indirect
PyPIzizmor1.29.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 106 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 statistics.