Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-22 15:48 UTC

antflydb / antfly

ZigCustom license★ 471 stars⑂ 32 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

antflydb/antfly holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (60/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AntflyOrganization
16 followers34 public repossince Dec 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/antflydb/antflyv0.2.5-5024 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.2/36Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 9,032 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year9,032
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year32

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~11.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.3.0-rc.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases11.3

Community & Adoption

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

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.3/60Stars — 471 stars
12.4/25Forks — 32 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks32
stars471
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.904
How it's scored
36.7/42Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance — 968/1,041 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs968
open_issues25
closed_issues174
prs_merged_7d57
prs_decided_7d58
prs_merged_30d57
prs_decided_30d58
issue_closed_ratio0.874
closed_unmerged_prs73
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.8/25Owner reach — 16 followers of antflydb
18.9/25Track record — 34 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers16
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginantflydb
public_repos34
account_age_days1,407

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 24 days ago
20/20Version history — 50 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/antflydb/antfly
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish24

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 37 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yaml, biome.json, ruff.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
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://antfly.io
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsautoscaling, elasticsearch, information-retrieval, ml, multimodal, rag, semantic-search, ai-agents
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://antfly.io
docs_sitehttps://antfly.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesCargo.lock, go.sum, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock
manifestsrs/Cargo.toml, scripts/pyproject.toml, ts/package.json, zig/go.mod
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, go/pkg/evalaf/AGENTS.md, go/pkg/evalaf/CLAUDE.md, go/pkg/operator/AGENTS.md, go/pkg/operator/CLAUDE.md, ts/AGENTS.md, ts/CLAUDE.md, ts/packages/components/AGENTS.md, ts/packages/components/CLAUDE.md, ts/packages/design-system/src/components/brand/anty/AGENTS.md, ts/packages/design-system/src/components/brand/anty/CLAUDE.md, zig/lib/image/src/jpeg2000/AGENTS.md, zig/lib/image/src/jpeg2000/CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
35.6/40Legible commit history — 66 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.667
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, go/pkg/evalaf/AGENTS.md, go/pkg/evalaf/CLAUDE.md, go/pkg/operator/AGENTS.md, go/pkg/operator/CLAUDE.md, ts/AGENTS.md, ts/CLAUDE.md, ts/packages/components/AGENTS.md, ts/packages/components/CLAUDE.md, ts/packages/design-system/src/components/brand/anty/AGENTS.md, ts/packages/design-system/src/components/brand/anty/CLAUDE.md, zig/lib/image/src/jpeg2000/AGENTS.md, zig/lib/image/src/jpeg2000/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes10,693
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, go/pkg/operator/Makefile, py/packages/sdk/Makefile, py/packages/sdk/docs/Makefile, rs/crates/postgres/Makefile, zig/Makefile, zig/search-benchmark-game/engines/antfly-zig/Makefile, zig/search-benchmark-game/engines/tantivy-kernel/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yaml, biome.json, ruff.toml
11/11Static type checking — py/packages/embedded/src/antfly_embedded/py.typed, py/packages/sdk/src/antfly/client_generated/py.typed, ts/apps/antfarm/tsconfig.json, ts/apps/model-explorer/tsconfig.json, ts/apps/playground/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/components/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/design-system/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/embedded/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/graph/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/sdk/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/web/test/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/web/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, go.sum, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, go/pkg/operator/Makefile, py/packages/sdk/Makefile, py/packages/sdk/docs/Makefile, rs/crates/postgres/Makefile, zig/Makefile, zig/search-benchmark-game/engines/antfly-zig/Makefile, zig/search-benchmark-game/engines/tantivy-kernel/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspy/packages/embedded/src/antfly_embedded/py.typed, py/packages/sdk/src/antfly/client_generated/py.typed, ts/apps/antfarm/tsconfig.json, ts/apps/model-explorer/tsconfig.json, ts/apps/playground/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/components/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/design-system/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/embedded/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/graph/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/sdk/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/web/test/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/web/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsexamples/antfly-lite-go/go.mod, examples/antfly-lite-retrieval-go/go.mod, examples/docsaf/go.mod, examples/dogfood/go.mod, examples/epstein/go.mod, examples/image-search/go.mod, examples/memoryaf/go.mod, examples/postgres-sync/go.mod, examples/screenshots-shots-shots/go.mod, extensions/memoryaf/Cargo.toml, go/pkg/docsaf/go.mod, go/pkg/embedded/go.mod, go/pkg/evalaf/go.mod, go/pkg/evalaf/plugins/antfly/go.mod, go/pkg/genkit/antfly/go.mod, go/pkg/genkit/openrouter/go.mod, go/pkg/memoryaf/go.mod, go/pkg/operator/go.mod, go/pkg/proxy/go.mod, go/pkg/sdk/go.mod, rs/Cargo.toml, rs/crates/embedded-sys/Cargo.toml, rs/crates/embedded/Cargo.toml, rs/crates/postgres/Cargo.toml, rs/crates/sdk/Cargo.toml, scripts/pgwire_drivers/go/go.mod, scripts/pgwire_drivers/rust/Cargo.toml, zig/compat/commit_compare_go/go.mod, zig/compat/pebble_overwrite_go/go.mod, zig/go.mod, zig/lib/raft/tools/tracecmp/go.mod, zig/search-benchmark-game/engines/tantivy-kernel/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Zig with type-check config (py/packages/embedded/src/antfly_embedded/py.typed, py/packages/sdk/src/antfly/client_generated/py.typed, ts/apps/antfarm/tsconfig.json, ts/apps/model-explorer/tsconfig.json, ts/apps/playground/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/components/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/design-system/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/embedded/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/graph/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/sdk/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/web/test/tsconfig.json, ts/packages/web/tsconfig.json)
54/55Manageable file sizes — 78/4,120 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageZig
largest_source_bytes17,263,650
source_files_sampled4,120
oversized_source_files78
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — openapi.yaml, rs/crates/sdk/openapi.yaml, zig/pkg/inference/protos/google/sentencepiece/sentencepiece_model.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/onnx/onnx/onnx-ml.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/openxla/xla/xla/service/hlo.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/openxla/xla/xla/service/metrics.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/openxla/xla/xla/xla_data.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/protocolbuffers/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/protocolbuffers/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/duration.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/protocolbuffers/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/timestamp.proto
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesopenapi.yaml, rs/crates/sdk/openapi.yaml, zig/pkg/inference/protos/google/sentencepiece/sentencepiece_model.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/onnx/onnx/onnx-ml.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/openxla/xla/xla/service/hlo.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/openxla/xla/xla/service/metrics.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/openxla/xla/xla/xla_data.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/protocolbuffers/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/protocolbuffers/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/duration.proto, zig/pkg/inference/protos/protocolbuffers/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/timestamp.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

471GitHub stars
14contributors
9,032commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
25open issues
crates.io, Go, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'antfly-zig-scripts' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit; 2026/10/22 15:46:32 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 32 ⇿
0Stars
32Forks
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.

812162024283232102026-032026-072026-10
Major 0Minor 1Patch 4
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIjsonschema>=4.26.0scripts/pyproject.toml
PyPIopenapi-spec-validator>=0.7.2scripts/pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML>=6.0scripts/pyproject.toml
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 statistics — Go.