Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 11:05 UTC

ffroliva / gflow-cli

Drive Google Flow from the command line: Veo video and Imagen images, scripted, batched and pipeline-ready. Ships an MCP server so coding agents can drive it too, giving you and your agents full programmatic control over generation. Unofficial, alpha, not affiliated with Google.

PythonMIT★ 183 stars⑂ 52 forkssince May 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolMCP serverNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined
#agentic#ai-agents#claude-code#cli#generative-ai#google-flow#image-to-video#imagen#mcp#mcp-server#python#text-to-video#veo#video-generation

ffroliva/gflow-cli holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (62/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Flavio OlivaPersonal account
22 followers132 public repossince Jan 2017

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
PyPIgflow-cli0.72.05,909900 days agoaicliflowgoogleveovideo

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,823 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,823
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 90 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count90
latest_release_tagv0.72.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.7

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

63Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

51Moderate
How it's scored
36.7/60Stars — 183 stars
14.2/25Forks — 52 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks52
stars183
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges18
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io, sonarcloud.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

63Moderate
How it's scored
50.3/80Monthly downloads — 5,909 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgflow-cli
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,909
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.944

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
27.2/30PR acceptance — 513/566 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs513
open_issues40
closed_issues161
prs_merged_7d56
prs_decided_7d58
prs_merged_30d56
prs_decided_30d58
issue_closed_ratio0.801
closed_unmerged_prs53
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.8/25Owner reach — 22 followers of ffroliva
25/25Track record — 132 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers22
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginffroliva
public_repos132
account_age_days3,529
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 90 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgflow-cli
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://ffroliva.github.io/gflow-cli/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 14 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagentic, ai-agents, claude-code, cli, generative-ai, google-flow, image-to-video, imagen, mcp, mcp-server, python, text-to-video, veo, video-generation
has_wikino
homepagehttps://ffroliva.github.io/gflow-cli/
docs_sitehttps://ffroliva.github.io/gflow-cli/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

75Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

69Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.9

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_packages143
unassessed_packages8
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 143 resolved dependencies against OSV. 8 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, website/docs/agents.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, website/docs/agents.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes34,785

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.7/55Manageable file sizes — 14/607 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes206,981
source_files_sampled607
oversized_source_files14

Machine-readable interfaces

60Moderate
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, samples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

183GitHub stars
13contributors
1,823commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
90releases
1bus factor
40open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:gflow-cli@0.72.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 52 ⇿
0Stars
52Forks
86Releases

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.

01020304050605142026-052026-072026-09
Major 0Minor 66Patch 15
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 11:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIclick>=8.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.27.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplaywright>=1.61.0,<1.62.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=13.7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-settings>=2.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs>=4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIstructlog>=24.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItenacity>=8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIbrowser-cookie3>=0.20.1pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=2.0.0,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIfastapi>=0.115.0pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.34.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsse-starlette>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 151

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 134 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbrowser-cookie30.20.1direct
PyPIclick—direct
PyPIclick8.5.0direct
PyPIfastapi0.141.1direct
PyPIhttpx—direct
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPImcp2.1.1direct
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.7direct
PyPIplaywright—direct
PyPIplaywright1.61.0direct
PyPIpydantic-settings2.15.0direct
PyPIrich—direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPIsse-starlette3.4.10direct
PyPIstructlog26.1.0direct
PyPItenacity9.1.4direct
PyPIuvicorn0.52.1direct
PyPIaiobotocore3.9.0indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.7.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3indirect
PyPIaioitertools0.13.0indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.5indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIav18.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIbotocore1.43.56indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.3indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIdecorator5.3.1indirect
PyPIdetect-secrets1.5.0indirect
PyPIdocker7.2.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2026.7.0indirect
PyPIgcsfs2026.8.0indirect
PyPIgflow-cli0.72.0indirect
PyPIgherkin-official29.0.0indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-api-core2.33.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth2.56.2indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth-oauthlib1.4.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-core2.6.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-storage3.13.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-storage-control1.12.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-crc32c1.8.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-resumable-media2.10.0indirect
PyPIgoogleapis-common-protos1.75.0indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.5.4indirect
PyPIgrpc-google-iam-v10.14.4indirect
PyPIgrpcio1.83.0indirect
PyPIgrpcio-status1.83.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.12.0indirect
PyPIhttptools0.8.0indirect
PyPIhttpx22.12.0indirect
PyPIhttpx2-jsfetch1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjmespath1.1.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIlz44.4.5indirect
PyPImako1.3.12indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImcp-types2.1.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPInumpy2.4.6indirect
PyPInumpy2.5.1indirect
PyPIoauthlib3.3.1indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.44.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIparse1.22.1indirect
PyPIparse-type0.6.6indirect
PyPIpatchright1.61.2indirect
PyPIpathlib-abc0.5.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpillow12.3.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.2indirect
PyPIproto-plus1.28.2indirect
PyPIprotobuf7.35.1indirect
PyPIpyasn10.6.4indirect
PyPIpyasn1-modules0.4.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpycryptodomex3.23.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpyee13.0.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpyright—indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-bdd8.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32312indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequests-oauthlib2.0.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIruff0.16.6indirect
PyPIs3fs2026.7.0indirect
PyPIshadowcopy0.0.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPItestcontainers4.15.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuniversal-pathlib0.3.10indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuvloop0.22.1indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwatchfiles1.2.0indirect
PyPIwebsockets17.0.1indirect
PyPIwmi1.5.1indirect
PyPIwrapt2.3.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.24.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 143 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 8 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with ffroliva/gflow-cli. Read them side by side →

99awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99ag2ai/ag2AG2 (formerly AutoGen): The Open-Source AgentOS.Join us at: https://discord.gg/sNGSwQME3xExceptional98langchain-ai/langchainThe agent engineering platform.Exceptional98strands-agents/toolsA set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.Exceptional

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 — PyPI.