Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 00:01 UTC

cluebbehusen / lmux

Modular Python library for unified LLM provider access with cost reporting

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#anthropic#aws#azure#bedrock#gcp#llm#openai#unified-api#vertex-ai

cluebbehusen/lmux holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

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

Ownership

Connor LuebbehusenPersonal account
2 followers18 public repossince Jun 2018@bioscope-ai

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIlmux0.12.0-1439 days agollmailanguage-modelmultiplexer
PyPIlmux-groq0.8.2-177 days agollmaigroqlanguage-model
PyPIlmux-google0.12.4-132 days agollmaigooglegeminivertexlanguage-model
PyPIlmux-openai0.10.3-204 days agollmaiopenaigptlanguage-model
PyPIlmux-anthropic0.16.2-274 days agollmaianthropicclaudelanguage-model
PyPIlmux-gcp-vertex0.7.0-1591 days agollmaigooglegeminivertexlanguage-model
PyPIlmux-aws-bedrock0.13.3-274 days agollmaiawsbedrocklanguage-model
PyPIlmux-azure-foundry0.10.3-234 days agollmaiazureopenailanguage-model

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

79Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 453 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year453
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year22

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_taglmux-google-v0.12.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases0.5
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

21At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.905

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
35.4/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 112/117 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs112
open_issues6
closed_issues32
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d13
issue_closed_ratio0.842
closed_unmerged_prs5
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2

Ownership & stewardship

43Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of cluebbehusen
21.3/25Track record — 18 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logincluebbehusen
public_repos18
account_age_days3,013
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 8 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 27 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslmux, lmux-groq, lmux-google, lmux-openai, lmux-anthropic, lmux-gcp-vertex, lmux-aws-bedrock, lmux-azure-foundry
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsanthropic, aws, azure, bedrock, gcp, llm, openai, unified-api, vertex-ai
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 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 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — 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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages5
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:lmux@0.12.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 5 packages. 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.

80Excellent · 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 — 97 of 97 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, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,331

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

76Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — packages/lmux-anthropic/src/lmux_anthropic/py.typed, packages/lmux-aws-bedrock/src/lmux_aws_bedrock/py.typed, packages/lmux-azure-foundry/src/lmux_azure_foundry/py.typed, packages/lmux-bedrock-shared/src/lmux_bedrock_shared/py.typed, packages/lmux-gcp-vertex/src/lmux_gcp_vertex/py.typed, packages/lmux-google/src/lmux_google/py.typed, packages/lmux-groq/src/lmux_groq/py.typed, packages/lmux-load-balancer/src/lmux_load_balancer/py.typed, packages/lmux-openai/src/lmux_openai/py.typed, packages/lmux/src/lmux/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspackages/lmux-anthropic/src/lmux_anthropic/py.typed, packages/lmux-aws-bedrock/src/lmux_aws_bedrock/py.typed, packages/lmux-azure-foundry/src/lmux_azure_foundry/py.typed, packages/lmux-bedrock-shared/src/lmux_bedrock_shared/py.typed, packages/lmux-gcp-vertex/src/lmux_gcp_vertex/py.typed, packages/lmux-google/src/lmux_google/py.typed, packages/lmux-groq/src/lmux_groq/py.typed, packages/lmux-load-balancer/src/lmux_load_balancer/py.typed, packages/lmux-openai/src/lmux_openai/py.typed, packages/lmux/src/lmux/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03

Code legibility for models

81Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (packages/lmux-anthropic/src/lmux_anthropic/py.typed, packages/lmux-aws-bedrock/src/lmux_aws_bedrock/py.typed, packages/lmux-azure-foundry/src/lmux_azure_foundry/py.typed, packages/lmux-bedrock-shared/src/lmux_bedrock_shared/py.typed, packages/lmux-gcp-vertex/src/lmux_gcp_vertex/py.typed, packages/lmux-google/src/lmux_google/py.typed, packages/lmux-groq/src/lmux_groq/py.typed, packages/lmux-load-balancer/src/lmux_load_balancer/py.typed, packages/lmux-openai/src/lmux_openai/py.typed, packages/lmux/src/lmux/py.typed)
53.6/55Manageable file sizes — 5/201 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes201,189
source_files_sampled201
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

0GitHub stars
3contributors
453commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
6open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch pypi package 'lmux-workspace' from its registry
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux-groq' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux-google' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux-openai' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux-anthropic' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux-gcp-vertex' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux-aws-bedrock' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'lmux-azure-foundry' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 00:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 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 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 20
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIlmux~=0.12packages/lmux-anthropic/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx~=0.28packages/lmux-anthropic/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux~=0.12packages/lmux-aws-bedrock/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux-bedrock-shared~=0.3packages/lmux-aws-bedrock/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx~=0.28packages/lmux-aws-bedrock/pyproject.toml
PyPIboto3>=1.42.31,<2packages/lmux-aws-bedrock/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux~=0.12packages/lmux-azure-foundry/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx~=0.28packages/lmux-azure-foundry/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux~=0.11packages/lmux-bedrock-shared/pyproject.toml
PyPIboto3>=1.42.31,<2packages/lmux-bedrock-shared/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux-google~=0.7packages/lmux-gcp-vertex/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux~=0.12packages/lmux-google/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx~=0.28packages/lmux-google/pyproject.toml
PyPIgoogle-auth~=2.0packages/lmux-google/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux~=0.11packages/lmux-groq/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx~=0.28packages/lmux-groq/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux~=0.10packages/lmux-load-balancer/pyproject.toml
PyPIlmux~=0.12packages/lmux-openai/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx~=0.28packages/lmux-openai/pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic~=2.10packages/lmux/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 88

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 74 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIboto3—direct
PyPIboto31.42.70direct
PyPIgoogle-auth—direct
PyPIgoogle-auth2.49.1direct
PyPIhttpx—direct
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPIlmux—direct
PyPIlmux0.12.0direct
PyPIlmux-bedrock-shared—direct
PyPIlmux-bedrock-shared0.3.2direct
PyPIlmux-google—direct
PyPIlmux-google0.12.4direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpydantic2.12.5direct
PyPIaiobotocore—indirect
PyPIaiobotocore3.3.0indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3indirect
PyPIaioitertools0.13.0indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanthropic—indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIazure-core1.39.0indirect
PyPIazure-identity—indirect
PyPIazure-identity1.25.3indirect
PyPIboto3-stubs1.42.78indirect
PyPIbotocore1.42.70indirect
PyPIbotocore-stubs1.42.41indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.6indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-genai—indirect
PyPIgroq—indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjmespath1.1.0indirect
PyPIlmux-anthropic0.16.2indirect
PyPIlmux-aws-bedrock0.13.3indirect
PyPIlmux-azure-foundry0.10.3indirect
PyPIlmux-gcp-vertex0.7.0indirect
PyPIlmux-groq0.8.2indirect
PyPIlmux-load-balancer0.1.1indirect
PyPIlmux-openai0.10.3indirect
PyPIlmux-workspace0.0.0indirect
PyPImsal1.37.0indirect
PyPImsal-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPImypy-boto3-bedrock1.42.69indirect
PyPImypy-boto3-bedrock-runtime1.42.42indirect
PyPIopenai—indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.4.1indirect
PyPIpyasn10.6.4indirect
PyPIpyasn1-modules0.4.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.3.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIrespx0.23.1indirect
PyPIruff0.15.8indirect
PyPIs3transfer0.16.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIty0.0.57indirect
PyPItypes-aiobotocore3.2.1indirect
PyPItypes-aiobotocore-bedrock-runtime3.2.1indirect
PyPItypes-awscrt0.31.3indirect
PyPItypes-s3transfer0.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuv-build—indirect
PyPIwrapt2.1.2indirect
PyPIyarl1.23.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:lmux@0.12.0 pulls in 5 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with cluebbehusen/lmux. Read them side by side →

98Netflix/metaflowBuild, Manage and Deploy AI/ML SystemsExceptional98strands-agents/toolsA set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.Exceptional98langchain-ai/langchainThe agent engineering platform.Exceptional97strands-agents/harness-sdkBuild an agent harness and control it end-to-end. Open-source SDK for production AI agents in Python & TypeScript - any model, any cloud.Exceptional97langgenius/difyBuild Agentic workflows, RAG pipelines, with rich AI model and tool support on one collaborative workspace. Deploy on cloud, VPC, or self-hosted, so teams move from prototype to production without rebuilding the stack.Exceptional97Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPTAutoGPT is the vision of accessible AI for everyone, to use and to build on. Our mission is to provide the tools, so that you can focus on what matters.Exceptional

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 — PyPI.