Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 14:30 UTC

docling-project / docling-ibm-models

PythonMIT★ 207 stars⑂ 77 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

docling-project/docling-ibm-models holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on Security (49/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

81
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.

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

Ownership

Docling ProjectOrganization
1,193 followers26 public repossince Nov 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIdocling-ibm-models3.13.3-5944 days agodoclingconvertdocumentpdflayout-modelsegmentationtable-structuretable-former

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

48Weak
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 44 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume — 32 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 57 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 44 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~25.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count57
latest_release_tagv3.13.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release44
mean_days_between_releases25.5
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?

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

57Moderate
How it's scored
37.5/60Stars — 207 stars
15.7/25Forks — 77 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks77
stars207
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

73Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.373

Issue & PR responsiveness

53Moderate
How it's scored
11/42Issue resolution — 26% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance — 96/111 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 18/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs96
open_issues34
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.261
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

82Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
22.1/25Owner reach — 1,193 followers of docling-project
13.8/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,193
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_logindocling-project
public_repos26
account_age_days611
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 44 days ago
20/20Version history — 59 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdocling-ibm-models
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish44

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 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
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 18/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 56 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — docling_ibm_models/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdocling_ibm_models/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (docling_ibm_models/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/53 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes56,449
source_files_sampled53
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

207GitHub stars
17contributors
32commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
57releases
2bus factor
34open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 14:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 18/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities56 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItorch(>=2.2.2,<3.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPItorchvision(>=0,<1)pyproject.toml
PyPIjsonlines(>=3.1.0,<5.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow(>=10.0.0,<13.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm(>=4.64.0,<5.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIhuggingface_hub(>=0.23,<2)pyproject.toml
PyPIsafetensors(>=0.4.3,<1)pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic(>=2.0.0,<3.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIdocling-core(>=2.19.0,<3.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPItransformers(>=4.42.0,<5.9.0,!=5.0.*,!=5.1.*,!=5.2.*,!=5.3.*)pyproject.toml
PyPItransformers(>=4.42.0,<6.0.0,!=5.0.*,!=5.1.*,!=5.2.*,!=5.3.*)pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy(>=1.24.4,<3.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIrtree>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIaccelerate(>=1.2.1,<2.0.0)pyproject.toml
All dependencies 166

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 152 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaccelerate1.12.0direct
PyPIdocling-core2.66.0direct
PyPIhuggingface-hub1.8.0direct
PyPIjsonlines4.0.0direct
PyPInumpy2.2.6direct
PyPIpillow12.1.1direct
PyPIpydantic2.12.5direct
PyPIrtree1.4.1direct
PyPIsafetensors—direct
PyPIsafetensors0.7.0direct
PyPItorch2.10.0direct
PyPItorchvision0.25.0direct
PyPItqdm4.67.3direct
PyPItransformers5.8.1direct
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.13.3indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIautoflake2.3.3indirect
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIblack24.10.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIclick-log0.4.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.4indirect
PyPIcryptography46.0.5indirect
PyPIcuda-bindings12.9.4indirect
PyPIcuda-pathfinder1.4.0indirect
PyPIdatasets3.6.0indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdill0.3.8indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIdocling-ibm-models3.13.3indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIdotty-dict1.3.1indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.25.0indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIflake8-docstrings1.7.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2025.3.0indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.46indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhf-xet1.4.2indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.17indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIinvoke2.2.1indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.4.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjsonref1.1.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPIlatex2mathml3.78.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.8.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.8.0indirect
PyPImpmath1.3.0indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPImultiprocess0.70.16indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInetworkx3.4.2indirect
PyPInh30.3.3indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPInvidia-cublas-cu1212.8.4.1indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-cupti-cu1212.8.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-nvrtc-cu1212.8.93indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-runtime-cu1212.8.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cudnn-cu129.10.2.21indirect
PyPInvidia-cufft-cu1211.3.3.83indirect
PyPInvidia-cufile-cu121.13.1.3indirect
PyPInvidia-curand-cu1210.3.9.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cusolver-cu1211.7.3.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparse-cu1212.5.8.93indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparselt-cu120.7.1indirect
PyPInvidia-nccl-cu122.27.5indirect
PyPInvidia-nvjitlink-cu1212.8.93indirect
PyPInvidia-nvshmem-cu123.4.5indirect
PyPInvidia-nvtx-cu1212.8.90indirect
PyPIopencv-python4.13.0.92indirect
PyPIopencv-python-headless4.13.0.92indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpandas2.3.3indirect
PyPIpandas-stubs2.3.3.260113indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIpkginfo1.12.1.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit3.8.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.4.1indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIpyarrow23.0.1indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5indirect
PyPIpydocstyle6.3.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-dependency0.6.1indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-gitlab3.15.0indirect
PyPIpython-semantic-release7.34.6indirect
PyPIpytz2026.1.post1indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer44.0indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIregex2026.2.28indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich14.3.3indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsemver2.13.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools82.0.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.2indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsympy1.14.0indirect
PyPItabulate0.9.0indirect
PyPItokenizers0.22.2indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.14.0indirect
PyPItriton3.6.0indirect
PyPItwine3.8.0indirect
PyPItyper0.21.2indirect
PyPItypes-pytz2025.2.0.20251108indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.32.4.20260107indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools70.3.0.20240710indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItzdata2025.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.1.0indirect
PyPIwheel0.46.3indirect
PyPIxxhash3.6.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.23.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.0indirect
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 docling-project/docling-ibm-models. Read them side by side →

98docling-project/doclingGet your documents ready for gen AIExceptional73docling-project/docling.rsFull Rust port of Python doclingGood95opendataloader-project/opendataloader-pdfPDF Parser for AI-ready data. Automate PDF accessibility. Open-source.Exceptional90xberg-io/xbergPolyglot document intelligence with a Rust core: extract text, metadata, images, tables, and structured data from 106 formats across 140 file extensions, plus code intelligence for 371 languages. Fifteen bindings, with CLI, REST API, and MCP server.Excellent89docling-project/docling-parseSimple package to extract text with coordinates from programmatic PDFsExcellent75PDFMathTranslate/PDFMathTranslate[EMNLP 2025 Demo] PDF scientific paper translation with preserved formats - 基于 AI 完整保留排版的 PDF 文档全文双语翻译，支持 Google/DeepL/Ollama/OpenAI 等服务，提供 CLI/GUI/MCP/Docker/ZoteroGood

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.