# epam/ketcher — health index 37/100 (At risk)

> Inspection of the public repository epam/ketcher by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 37 out of 100, placing it in the At risk 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/epam/ketcher
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/epam/ketcher
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/epam/ketcher/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/e/epam/ketcher.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-20
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.16.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 55/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 80/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 39/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 70/100 | Good |

High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Web-based molecule sketcher |
| Homepage | https://lifescience.opensource.epam.com/KetcherDemoSA/index.html |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 842 |
| Forks | 256 |
| Created | 2017-09-05 |
| Last push | 2026-07-20 |
| Latest release | v3.17.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,066 |
| Bus factor | 10 |
| Topics | cdx, cdxml, cheminformatics, chemistry, cml, lifescience, molecule, molecule-editor, nucleotide-sequence, nucleotides, peptides, smarts, smiles, helm, amino-acid-sequence, amino-acids, fasta, idt, molfile, mdl-molfile |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | playwright-testing | 1.0.0 | 10 |

## Vitality — 96/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1066 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 67 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 4 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~14.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 55/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 47.4 / 60 | 842 stars |
| Forks | partial | 20.1 / 25 | 256 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 8.4 / 15 | 33 watchers |

### Community health — 57/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 17/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 13.9 / 80 | 10 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 80/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 98/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 10 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 20 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 11% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 7 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 38.1 / 46.8 | 82% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 31.5 / 38.2 | 4088/4961 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 22.1 / 25 | 1,181 followers of epam |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 539 public repos, account ~14 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 53/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | partial | 4 / 35 | latest publish 1277 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 1 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 90/100 (Excellent)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 8 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.json, eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://lifescience.opensource.epam.com/KetcherDemoSA/index.html |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 39/100 (At risk)

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 — 24/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 7 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | not met | 0 / 10 | dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 31 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1888 resolved dependencies against OSV; 658 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 | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 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 | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 50/100 (Moderate)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | partial | 50 / 100 | Russia: top_contributor (1) |

## AI Readiness — 70/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/sonarqube_mcp.instructions.md, CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.json, eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | demo/tsconfig.json, example-ssr/tsconfig.json, example/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |

### Code legibility for models — 95/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 50.3 / 55 | 30/354 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (At risk)

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

## Collection warnings

- File tree truncated by GitHub API; file-based signals may be incomplete
- Resolved dependency list truncated to 2000 of 2546 packages (counts remain complete)

## 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