Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-28 01:55 UTC

intel / neural-compressor

SOTA low-bit LLM quantization (INT8/FP8/MXFP8/INT4/MXFP4/NVFP4) & sparsity; leading model compression techniques on PyTorch, TensorFlow, and ONNX Runtime

PythonApache-2.0★ 2,712 stars⑂ 325 forkssince Jul 2020View on GitHub ↗

intel/neural-compressor holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated today. 9 contributors account for most of its recent work.

96
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

96
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 84 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

5,603 followers1,362 public repossince Mar 2016

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 230 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year230
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year49
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 48 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 88 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~76.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count48
latest_release_tagv3.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release88
mean_days_between_releases76.5

Community & Adoption

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

88Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.7/60Stars — 2,712 stars
20.9/25Forks — 325 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 33 watchers
Inputs used
forks325
stars2,712
watchers33
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

91Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
54/54Bus factor — 9 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
20.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 10% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 97 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor9
contributors_sampled97
top_contributor_share0.095
How it's scored
41.6/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
25.2/30PR acceptance — 1,957/2,334 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs1,957
open_issues2
closed_issues227
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d29
prs_decided_30d31
issue_closed_ratio0.991
closed_unmerged_prs377
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 5,603 followers of intel
25/25Track record — 1,362 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,603
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginintel
public_repos1,362
account_age_days3,847

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

95Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://intel.github.io/neural-compressor/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 17 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslow-precision, pruning, sparsity, auto-tuning, knowledge-distillation, quantization, quantization-aware-training, post-training-quantization, smoothquant, large-language-models, awq, fp4, gptq, int4, int8, mxformat, sparsegpt
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://intel.github.io/neural-compressor/
docs_sitehttps://intel.github.io/neural-compressor/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestspyproject.toml, requirements_jax.txt, requirements_pt.txt, requirements_tf.txt, setup.cfg, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno

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
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages26
unassessed_packages96
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 26 resolved dependencies against OSV. 96 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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 91 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.929
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,386
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/build_docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 8 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/build_docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.08
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 11/557 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes1,931,245
source_files_sampled557
oversized_source_files11
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,712GitHub stars
97contributors
230commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
48releases
9bus factor
2open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit; 2026/09/28 01:54:39 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 325 ⇿
0Stars
325Forks
47Releases

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.

012525037531962020-082023-092026-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 14

Each point covers 6 days.

All dependencies 122

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 122 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaccelerate—indirect
PyPIauto-round—indirect
PyPIauto-round-lib—indirect
PyPIav12.1.0indirect
PyPIboto3—indirect
PyPIclip0.2.0indirect
PyPIcompressed-tensors—indirect
PyPIconformer—indirect
PyPIcython—indirect
PyPIdashscope—indirect
PyPIdatasets—indirect
PyPIdecord—indirect
PyPIdeprecated—indirect
PyPIdetectron2—indirect
PyPIdiffusers—indirect
PyPIdiffusers0.38.0indirect
PyPIdreamsim—indirect
PyPIeasydict—indirect
PyPIeinops—indirect
PyPIexpecttest—indirect
PyPIfairscale—indirect
PyPIftfy—indirect
PyPIfvcore—indirect
PyPIgdown—indirect
PyPIgdown4.7.3indirect
PyPIhf-transfer—indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub—indirect
PyPIhydra-core—indirect
PyPIhyperpyyaml—indirect
PyPIimageio—indirect
PyPIimageio-ffmpeg—indirect
PyPIinflect—indirect
PyPIintel-extension-for-tensorflow—indirect
PyPIjax—indirect
PyPIkeras—indirect
PyPIkeras-hub—indirect
PyPIlibrosa—indirect
PyPIlightning—indirect
PyPIlm-eval—indirect
PyPIlm-eval0.4.3indirect
PyPIloguru—indirect
PyPIlvis—indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPImodelscope—indirect
PyPIneural-compressor—indirect
PyPIneural-compressor-jax—indirect
PyPIneural-compressor-pt—indirect
PyPInumba—indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPIomegaconf—indirect
PyPIonnxruntime—indirect
PyPIopenai-clip—indirect
PyPIopenai-whisper—indirect
PyPIopencv-python-headless—indirect
PyPIoptimum-habana1.14.1indirect
PyPIpackaging—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpandas2.2.2indirect
PyPIpeft—indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIprettytable—indirect
PyPIprotobuf—indirect
PyPIpsutil—indirect
PyPIpy-cpuinfo—indirect
PyPIpyarrow—indirect
PyPIpycocoevalcap—indirect
PyPIpycocotools—indirect
PyPIpydantic—indirect
PyPIpyiqa—indirect
PyPIpyre-extensions—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpyworld—indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIrecommonmark0.7.1indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIrich—indirect
PyPIsafetensors—indirect
PyPIsafetensors0.8.0rc0indirect
PyPIschema—indirect
PyPIscikit-image—indirect
PyPIscikit-learn—indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIsentencepiece—indirect
PyPIsentencepiece0.2.1indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm9.2.2indirect
PyPIsphinx8.2.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-autoapi3.6.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild2025.8.25indirect
PyPIsphinx-markdown-tables0.0.17indirect
PyPIsphinx-md0.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxemoji0.3.1indirect
PyPItabulate—indirect
PyPItabulate0.10.0indirect
PyPItbb—indirect
PyPItensorboard—indirect
PyPItensorboardx—indirect
PyPItensorflow—indirect
PyPItimm—indirect
PyPItokenizers—indirect
PyPItorch—indirect
PyPItorch2.13.0indirect
PyPItorch-fidelity—indirect
PyPItorchao—indirect
PyPItorchao0.17.0indirect
PyPItorchaudio—indirect
PyPItorchmetrics—indirect
PyPItorchmetrics1.8.2indirect
PyPItorchsde0.2.6indirect
PyPItorchsnapshot—indirect
PyPItorchvision—indirect
PyPItorchvision0.28.0indirect
PyPItqdm—indirect
PyPItransformers—indirect
PyPItransformers5.10.1indirect
PyPIurllib3—indirect
PyPIwandb—indirect
PyPIwetext—indirect
PyPIwget—indirect
PyPIwheel—indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 26 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 96 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
gdown4.7.3indirecthigh25.2.2

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.

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.