# depalmar/ai_for_the_win — health index 81/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository depalmar/ai_for_the_win by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent 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/depalmar/ai_for_the_win
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/depalmar/ai_for_the_win
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/depalmar/ai_for_the_win/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/d/depalmar/ai_for_the_win.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-04
- Methodology: metrics 2.5.0, report schema 0.30.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 73/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 50/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 95/100 | Exceptional |
| Security | 16% | 72/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 70/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Build AI-powered security tools. 50+ hands-on labs covering ML, LLMs, RAG, threat detection, DFIR, and red teaming. Includes Colab notebooks, Docker environment, and CTF challenges. |
| Homepage | https://depalmar.github.io/ai_for_the_win/ |
| Primary language | Python |
| Stars | 157 |
| Forks | 24 |
| Created | 2025-12-15 |
| Last push | 2026-08-01 |
| Latest release | v1.9.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 268 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | adversarial-ml, ai, cybersecurity, incident-response, llm, machine-learning, malware-analysis, python, siem, threat-detection, ctf, dfir, docker, threat-intelligence, hands-on-labs, security-training, blue-team, cloud-security, threat-hunting, xdr |

## Vitality — 73/100 (Good)

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

### Development activity — 69/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 2 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 8.3 / 36 | 12/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 268 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 78/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 11 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 16.2 / 36 | latest release 205 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~0.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 64 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 58/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 47/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 35.6 / 60 | 157 stars |
| Forks | partial | 11.3 / 25 | 24 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 2 watchers |

### Community health — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| 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 — 50/100 (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) — 17/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 3.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 84% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 2.7 / 13.5 | 2 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 93/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | met | 42 / 42 | 100% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 24.8 / 30 | 225/272 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 47/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 10.1 / 25 | 24 followers of depalmar |
| Track record | partial | 17.1 / 25 | 4 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 95/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Engineering practices — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 9 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | ruff.toml |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://depalmar.github.io/ai_for_the_win/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 72/100 (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 — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| CodeQL workflow | met | 20 / 20 | — |

### Dependency advisories — 60/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 21 resolved dependencies against OSV; 100 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 14.5 / 35 | 2 affected: python-dotenv 1.0.0 (moderate 6.6), requests 2.32.4 (moderate 5.5) |
| 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 | partial | 30.7 / 40 | 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 131 days ago |

### 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 |

## AI Readiness — 70/100 (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 — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .cursorrules, CLAUDE.md, docs/CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 85 of 85 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 68/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | ruff.toml |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 39 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 15 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Python without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.4 / 55 | 2/183 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | notebooks |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch pypi package 'ai-for-the-win' from its registry
- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (2026/08/04 00:54:53 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

## 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