Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 18:02 UTC

dottxt-ai / outlines-core

Faster structured generation

Rust · PythonApache-2.0★ 309 stars⑂ 75 forkssince Aug 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

dottxt-ai/outlines-core holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (58/100). It was last updated 22 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

.txtOrganization · verified domain
342 followers15 public repossince Aug 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iooutlines-core0.2.141,23219230 days ago—
PyPIoutlines_core0.2.144,782,71317230 days agomachine-learningdeep-learninglanguage-modelsstructured-generation

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 22 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
14.6/18Commit volume — 41 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year41
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 41 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 230 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~31.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count41
latest_release_tag0.2.14
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release230
mean_days_between_releases31.8
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?

66Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.4/60Stars — 309 stars
15.6/25Forks — 75 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks75
stars309
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
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
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 4,783,945 downloads/month across crates, pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesoutlines-core, outlines_core
dependents—
ecosystemscrates, pypi
total_downloads34,330
monthly_downloads4,783,945
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.359
How it's scored
26.5/42Issue resolution — 63% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance — 120/137 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs120
open_issues44
closed_issues75
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.63
closed_unmerged_prs17
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
18.2/25Owner reach — 342 followers of dottxt-ai
14.8/25Track record — 15 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers342
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindottxt-ai
public_repos15
account_age_days1,108
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on crates, pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 230 days ago
20/20Version history — 19 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesoutlines-core, outlines_core
ecosystemscrates, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish230

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml, setup.cfg ([flake8])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.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_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/outlines-core
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfsm, json-schema, llms, regex, structured-generation
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.rs/outlines-core
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/outlines-core
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 17 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
3/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 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.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
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 1 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.7/40Legible commit history — 22 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.22
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml, setup.cfg ([flake8])
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
53.3/55Manageable file sizes — 1/33 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes84,860
source_files_sampled33
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

309GitHub stars
30contributors
41commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
41releases
3bus factor
44open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'outlines_core' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for outlines_core carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 75 ⇿
0Stars
75Forks
26Releases

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.

01325385063757542024-102025-092026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 25

Each point covers 2 days.

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 · 2026-08-27 18:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-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
9Code-ReviewFound 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioonce_cell1.20Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopyo30.29Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1.10.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde-pyobject0.8.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobincode2.0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iorustc-hash2.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex-automata0.4.9Cargo.toml
crates.iohf-hub=0.4.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotokenizers0.22.2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobincode—direct
crates.iohf-hub0.4.1direct
crates.ioonce_cell—direct
crates.iopyo3—direct
crates.ioregex—direct
crates.ioregex-automata—direct
crates.iorustc-hash—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioserde-pyobject—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.iothiserror—direct
crates.iotokenizers—direct
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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