Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-12 22:21 UTC

capstone-engine / capstone

Capstone disassembly/disassembler framework for ARM, ARM64 (ARMv8), Alpha, BPF, Ethereum VM, HPPA, LoongArch, M68K, M680X, Mips, MOS65XX, PPC, RISC-V(rv32G/rv64G), SH, Sparc, SystemZ, TMS320C64X, TriCore, Webassembly, XCore and X86.

CCustom license★ 8,944 stars⑂ 1,710 forkssince Nov 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

capstone-engine/capstone holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (61/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Capstone EngineOrganization
167 followers3 public repossince Jul 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIcapstonepoints to another repo — not scored5.0.9-3676 days ago
PyPIautosyncpoints to another repo — not scored0.0.42154830 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
27.7/36Commit cadence40/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume145 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year145
human_commit_share0.84
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year40
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases48 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 22 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~51.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count48
latest_release_tag6.0.0-Alpha10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases51.5

Community & Adoption

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

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars8,944 stars
25/25Forks1,710 forks
13.6/15Watchers285 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,710
stars8,944
watchers285
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, ci.appveyor.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 63% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 51 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.633
How it's scored
31.9/42Issue resolution76% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance1,301/1,552 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance7/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 14/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs1,301
open_issues343
closed_issues1,082
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d16
prs_decided_30d17
issue_closed_ratio0.759
closed_unmerged_prs251
first_time_authors_30d6
first_time_prs_merged_30d7
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
16/25Owner reach167 followers of capstone-engine
16.4/25Track record3 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers167
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincapstone-engine
public_repos3
account_age_days4,043
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows11 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://www.capstone-engine.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsreverse-engineering, disassembler, security, framework, arm, arm64, x86, sparc, powerpc, mips, x86-64, ethereum, systemz, webassembly, m68k, m0s65xx, m680x, tms320c64x, bpf, riscv
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.capstone-engine.org
docs_sitehttp://www.capstone-engine.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 14/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 51 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages11
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 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 11 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history79 of 84 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.94
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, bindings/java/Makefile, bindings/ocaml/Makefile, contrib/m68k_instruction_tbl_gen/Makefile, cstool/Makefile, packages/freebsd/ports/devel/capstone/Makefile, suite/fuzz/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance16 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, bindings/java/Makefile, bindings/ocaml/Makefile, contrib/m68k_instruction_tbl_gen/Makefile, cstool/Makefile, packages/freebsd/ports/devel/capstone/Makefile, suite/fuzz/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.16
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC (statically typed)
53.7/55Manageable file sizes39/1,689 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes217,619
source_files_sampled1,689
oversized_source_files39

Key facts

8,944GitHub stars
99contributors
145commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
48releases
1bus factor
343open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi package 'capstone' points at a different repository (https://www.capstone-engine.org); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • pypi package 'autosync' points at a different repository (https://github.com/wnyc/autosync); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,710 ⇿
0Stars
1,710Forks
28Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

5007501,0001,2501,5001,7501,710102018-102022-092026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 11

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-12 22:20 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-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 14/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 51 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItermcolor>= 2.3.0suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPItree_sitter== 0.24.0suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-cpp== 0.23.4suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPIblack>= 24.3.0suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPIusort>= 1.0.8suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools>= 69.2.0suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPIninja>= 1.11.1.1suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPIreuse>= 3.0.1suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPIclang-format>= 18.1.1suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
PyPIlit>= 18.1.8suite/auto-sync/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIblackdirect
PyPIclang-formatdirect
PyPIlitdirect
PyPIninjadirect
PyPIreusedirect
PyPIsetuptoolsdirect
PyPItermcolordirect
PyPItree-sitter0.24.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-cpp0.23.4direct
PyPIusortdirect
PyPIcapstoneindirect
PyPIimportlib-resourcesindirect
PyPIpyyamlindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 11 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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