Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 21:58 UTC

iree-org / iree

A retargetable MLIR-based machine learning compiler and runtime toolkit.

C++ · C · MLIRApache-2.0★ 3,907 stars⑂ 994 forkssince Sep 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationCommand-line toolhow this is determined

iree-org/iree 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 (64/100). It was last updated today. 7 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 83 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

IREEOrganization
205 followers33 public repossince Jun 2022

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

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume2,236 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year2,236
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~1.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagiree-3.12.0rc20260828
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.1

Community & Adoption

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

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
58.3/60Stars3,907 stars
25/25Forks994 forks
10.7/15Watchers86 watchers
Inputs used
forks994
stars3,907
watchers86
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges10
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
51.3/54Bus factor7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 16% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor7
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.159
How it's scored
30.6/42Issue resolution73% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance15,143/19,211 decided PRs merged
7.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance5/9 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs15,143
open_issues1,434
closed_issues3,838
prs_merged_7d14
prs_decided_7d18
prs_merged_30d44
prs_decided_30d58
issue_closed_ratio0.728
closed_unmerged_prs4,068
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d9
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16.6/25Owner reach205 followers of iree-org
19.5/25Track record33 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers205
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginiree-org
public_repos33
account_age_days1,529

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows38 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 sitehttp://iree.dev/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics12 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmlir, vulkan, tensorflow, spirv, cuda, jax, pytorch, compiler, machine-learning, runtime, onnx, rocm
has_wikino
homepagehttp://iree.dev/
docs_sitehttp://iree.dev/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
2.2/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
2/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
1.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities19 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages19
unassessed_packages21
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 19 resolved dependencies against OSV. 21 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history97 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/api_docs/python/Makefile, samples/custom_module/basic/Makefile, samples/dynamic_shapes/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingruntime/bindings/python/pyrightconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesdocs/api_docs/python/Makefile, samples/custom_module/basic/Makefile, samples/dynamic_shapes/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsruntime/bindings/python/pyrightconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.1
toolchain_manifestsruntime/bindings/tflite/java/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
53.4/55Manageable file sizes105/3,633 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes391,093
source_files_sampled3,633
oversized_source_files105
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)integrations/pjrt/third_party/pjrt_c_api/xla/pjrt/compile_options.proto, integrations/pjrt/third_party/pjrt_c_api/xla/xla_data.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, notebooks, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, notebooks, samples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesintegrations/pjrt/third_party/pjrt_c_api/xla/pjrt/compile_options.proto, integrations/pjrt/third_party/pjrt_c_api/xla/xla_data.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

3,907GitHub stars
99contributors
2,236commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
7bus factor
1,434open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 26 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 994 ⇿
0Stars
994Forks
98Releases

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.

02004006008001,000966142019-092023-032026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 21:57 UTC

3Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities19 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIchange-wheel-versionindirect
PyPIcmakeindirect
PyPIcommonmark0.9.1indirect
PyPIenum-tools0.10.0indirect
PyPIiree-base-compilerindirect
PyPIiree-base-compiler3.0.0indirect
PyPIiree-base-runtimeindirect
PyPIjax0.4.2indirect
PyPIjaxlib0.4.17.dev20230922indirect
PyPIkerasindirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-redirects1.2.2indirect
PyPIml-dtypesindirect
PyPImpi4py3.1.4indirect
PyPImyst-parser0.15.2indirect
PyPIninjaindirect
PyPInumpyindirect
PyPInumpy1.24.2indirect
PyPIonnxindirect
PyPIpackagingindirect
PyPIpillowindirect
PyPIpipindirect
PyPIpkginfoindirect
PyPIpyright1.1.410indirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIsphinx4.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuildindirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme1.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-toolbox2.16.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPIsympyindirect
PyPItensorflowindirect
PyPItwineindirect
PyPIwheelindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 19 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 21 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.

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.