# charmbracelet/ultraviolet — health index 71/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository charmbracelet/ultraviolet by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/charmbracelet/ultraviolet
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/charmbracelet/ultraviolet
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/charmbracelet/ultraviolet/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/c/charmbracelet/ultraviolet.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-29
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 50/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 66/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 74/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 67/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 72/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Mystical terminal user interface primitives 🌈 |
| Classification | library, application |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 376 |
| Forks | 61 |
| Created | 2025-05-06 |
| Last push | 2026-08-12 |
| Commits (last year) | 293 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | hacktoberfest, terminal, tui, cli, framework, golang |

## Vitality — 50/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 82/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 16 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 25.6 / 36 | 37/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 293 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 25 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | no releases |
| Release cadence | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 16 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 66/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 57/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 41.8 / 60 | 376 stars |
| Forks | partial | 14.8 / 25 | 61 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 58/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 34/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 91% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 16 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 18 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 66/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 18.6 / 42 | 44% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.8 / 30 | 99/111 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 7.5 / 15 | Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 16,108 followers of charmbracelet |
| Track record | partial | 24.8 / 25 | 56 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 74/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 8 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yml |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 6 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 67/100 (Good)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 59/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 18 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 25 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | 9 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 21 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status. 1 match(es) from contributors below the commit-weight threshold (fewer than 50 commits and under 10% of sampled commits) are recorded for review and do not affect the score.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match; 1 match(es) below the commit-weight threshold (<50 commits and <10% of commits), review-only |

## AI Readiness — 72/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 82 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | examples/go.mod, go.mod, internal/conformance/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yml |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 18 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.5 / 55 | 1/105 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch go package 'github.com/charmbracelet/ultraviolet' from its registry
- Could not fetch go package 'github.com/charmbracelet/ultraviolet/internal/conformance' from its registry

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt