# ggml-org/ggml — health index 73/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository ggml-org/ggml by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good 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/ggml-org/ggml
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/ggml-org/ggml
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/ggml-org/ggml/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/g/ggml-org/ggml.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-22
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.26.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 100/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 72/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 75/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 21/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 48/100 | At risk |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Tensor library for machine learning |
| Primary language | C++ |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 15,041 |
| Forks | 1,730 |
| Created | 2022-09-18 |
| Last push | 2026-07-17 |
| Latest release | v0.17.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,880 |
| Bus factor | 4 |
| Topics | automatic-differentiation, large-language-models, machine-learning, tensor-algebra |

## Vitality — 100/100 (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 4 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1880 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 26 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 4 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~5.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 4 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 88/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 97/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 15,041 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,730 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 12 / 15 | 148 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

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

## Sustainability & Governance — 72/100 (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) — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 43.2 / 54 | 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 15.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 32% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 62/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 21.1 / 46.8 | 45% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 31.3 / 38.2 | 672/822 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 4,268 followers of ggml-org |
| Track record | partial | 16.4 / 25 | 23 public repos, account ~3 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 75/100 (Good)

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

### Engineering practices — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 2 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 4 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 21/100 (Critical)

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 — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### 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 4 resolved dependencies against OSV; 5 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 — 100/100 (Excellent)

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 | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 48/100 (At risk)

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 — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 76 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 39/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | C++ (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 2 / 10 | 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | C++ (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 49.8 / 55 | 57/607 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 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (2026/07/22 10:00:55 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

## 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