Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 19:11 UTC

dustinkirkland / byobu

text window manager, shell multiplexer, integrated DevOps environment

Python · ShellGPL-3.0★ 1,670 stars⑂ 140 forkssince Jan 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

dustinkirkland/byobu holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (28/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

Dustin KirklandPersonal account
377 followers75 public repossince Jun 2011Chainguard

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
PyPItrustmux7.15-788 days agotmuxbyobuterminalmobilepwa

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 413 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_year413
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 82 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count82
latest_release_tagtrustmux-v7.16rc6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1
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?

65Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

78Good
How it's scored
52.3/60Stars — 1,670 stars
17.9/25Forks — 140 forks
7.9/15Watchers — 27 watchers
Inputs used
forks140
stars1,670
watchers27
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 (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 38 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled38
top_contributor_share0.957

Issue & PR responsiveness

54Moderate
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
6.3/30PR acceptance — 18/86 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs18
open_issues1
closed_issues30
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.968
closed_unmerged_prs68
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

67Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.5/25Owner reach — 377 followers of dustinkirkland
25/25Track record — 75 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers377
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindustinkirkland
public_repos75
account_age_days5,517
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 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 78 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestrustmux
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://byobu.org
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://byobu.org
docs_sitehttps://byobu.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

36Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

36Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no 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
0/5Packaging — no data
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
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

28At Risk · 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)

39Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
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

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.1/55Manageable file sizes — 1/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes86,268
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

1,670GitHub stars
38contributors
413commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
82releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 19:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItornado>=6.5.7mobile/pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=43.0mobile/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPItornado—direct
PyPItornado6.5.6direct
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPItrustmux7.1.0indirect
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 dustinkirkland/byobu. Read them side by side →

93tmux-python/libtmux⚙️ Python API / wrapper for tmuxExceptional100ionic-team/ionic-frameworkA powerful cross-platform UI toolkit for building native-quality iOS, Android, and Progressive Web Apps with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.Exceptional92agent-of-empires/agent-of-empiresManage multiple Claude Code, OpenCode agents from either TUI or Web for easy access on mobile. Also supports Mistral Vibe, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, Pi.dev, Copilot CLI, Factory Droid Coding.Excellent92docmd-io/docmdDocumentation compiler for humans and machines. One Markdown source to website, search, AI context, and knowledge formats together.Excellent89asheshgoplani/agent-deckTerminal session manager for AI coding agents. One TUI for Claude, Gemini, OpenCode, Codex, and more.Excellent84manaflow-ai/cmuxOpen source Ghostty-based macOS terminal with vertical tabs and notifications for AI coding agents. Built for multitasking, organization, and programmability.Excellent

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.