# headroomlabs-ai/headroom — health index 80/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository headroomlabs-ai/headroom by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 80 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/headroomlabs-ai/headroom
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/headroomlabs-ai/headroom
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/headroomlabs-ai/headroom/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/h/headroomlabs-ai/headroom.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.23.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 92/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 67/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 86/100 | Excellent |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Compress tool outputs, logs, files, and RAG chunks before they reach the LLM. 20% fewer tokens for coding agents, 60-95% fewer tokens for JSON, same answers. Library, proxy, MCP server. |
| Homepage | https://headroom-docs.vercel.app/docs |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 60,929 |
| Forks | 4,577 |
| Created | 2026-01-07 |
| Last push | 2026-07-21 |
| Latest release | v0.32.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 2,324 |
| Bus factor | 2 |
| Topics | agent, ai, anthropic, compression, context-engineering, context-window, fastapi, langchain, llm, mcp, openai, proxy, python, rag, token-optimization, claude-code, cursor, prompt-engineering, tokens, typescript |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | headroom-ai | 0.32.1 | — |
| npm | headroom-ai | 0.22.4 | 115,595 |
| npm | headroom-openclaw | 0.1.0 | 394 |

## Vitality — 86/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 19.4 / 36 | 28/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 2324 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 4 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 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 4 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~4.7 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 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 98/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 60,929 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 4,577 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 12.6 / 15 | 188 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 84/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 67.5 / 80 | 115,989 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 67/100 (Moderate)

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) — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 11.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 49% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 97 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 21 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 30.6 / 46.8 | 66% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 31.3 / 38.2 | 1151/1407 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 10.5 / 15 | Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 49/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 15.5 / 25 | 143 followers of headroomlabs-ai |
| Track record | partial | 3.7 / 25 | 2 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 2 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 48 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 12 / 20 | 2 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 96/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 94/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 21 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 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://headroom-docs.vercel.app/docs |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 58/100 (Moderate)

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 — 47/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 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 | partial | 5.2 / 7.5 | Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 21 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 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | partial | 4.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file 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 | 32 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 1446 resolved dependencies against OSV; 48 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 — 86/100 (Excellent)

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 — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .github/copilot-instructions.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt present |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 87/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | docs/tsconfig.json, headroom/py.typed, plugins/openclaw/tsconfig.json, plugins/opencode/tsconfig.json, sdk/typescript/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 14 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 81/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (docs/tsconfig.json, headroom/py.typed, plugins/openclaw/tsconfig.json, plugins/opencode/tsconfig.json, sdk/typescript/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.9 / 55 | 33/1639 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

- pypi package 'headroom-ai' points at a different repository (https://github.com/chopratejas/headroom); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch crates package 'headroom-py' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'headroom-opencode' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'headroom-core' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'headroom-proxy' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'headroom-parity' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'headroom-simulators' from its registry
- deps.dev does not index pypi:headroom-ai@0.32.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

## 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