# hanzoai/agents — health index 34/100 (At Risk)

> Inspection of the public repository hanzoai/agents by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 34 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/hanzoai/agents
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/hanzoai/agents
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/hanzoai/agents/report
- Badge: https://inspect.software/badge/v1/hanzoai/agents.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-23
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 79/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 40/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 65/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 70/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 44/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 78/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Classification | network-service, cli, tui |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2025-10-10 |
| Last push | 2026-09-30 |
| Latest release | v0.2.9 |
| Commits (last year) | 106 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/hanzoai/agents | v0.2.9 | — |

## Vitality — 79/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 73/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 22 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 18.7 / 36 | 27/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 106 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 9 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 41 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~15.3 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 22 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 40/100 (Weak)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 85/100 (Excellent)

| 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 | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 65/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 37/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 10.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 53% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 22 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 67/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 20 / 30 | 2/3 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 67/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 11.7 / 25 | 42 followers of hanzoai |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 552 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 41 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 9 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 70/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 80/100 (Excellent)

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

### Documentation — 55/100 (Moderate)

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

## Security — 44/100 (Weak)

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 — 30/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2364 resolved dependencies against OSV; 39 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 (Exceptional)

| 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 — 75/100 (Good)

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 | 75 / 100 | Russia: contributor_organization (1) |

## AI Readiness — 78/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 73/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | partial | 18 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md (stub) |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 92 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | biome.json, eslint.config.js |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | apps/consensus/tsconfig.json, apps/desktop/tsconfig.json, control-plane/web/client/tsconfig.json, examples/python_agent_nodes/rag_evaluation/ui/tsconfig.json, examples/ts-node-examples/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, sdk/typescript/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 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 — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.9 / 55 | 3/1154 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 60/100 (Moderate)

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

## Collection warnings

- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit; 2026/10/23 03:19:03 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