Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 08:37 UTC

jwohlwend / boltz

Official repository for the Boltz biomolecular interaction models

PythonMIT★ 4,181 stars⑂ 885 forkssince Nov 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#binding-prediction#drug-discovery#protein-structure

jwohlwend/boltz holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (73/100) and lowest on Security (42/100). It was last updated 91 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jeremy WohlwendPersonal account
332 followers19 public repossince Apr 2014MIT

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIboltz2.2.132,95118353 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

46Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

24At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 91 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push91
active_weeks_last_year6

Release discipline

78Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 353 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~26.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv2.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release353
mean_days_between_releases26.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

94Exceptional
How it's scored
58.7/60Stars — 4,181 stars
24.6/25Forks — 885 forks
10.2/15Watchers — 68 watchers
Inputs used
forks885
stars4,181
watchers68
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

64Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 34% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 63 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled63
top_contributor_share0.342

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
33.4/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
19/30PR acceptance — 88/139 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs88
open_issues103
closed_issues402
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.796
closed_unmerged_prs51
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.

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.1/25Owner reach — 332 followers of jwohlwend
21.5/25Track record — 19 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers332
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjwohlwend
public_repos19
account_age_days4,527
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 353 days ago
20/20Version history — 18 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesboltz
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish353

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbinding-prediction, drug-discovery, protein-structure
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

38Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

58Moderate
How it's scored
8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 5 affected: click 8.1.7 (high 7.2), hydra-core 1.3.2 (high 7.8), pytorch-lightning 2.5.0 (high 7.8), +2 more
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
24.5/40No advisories left outstanding — 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 444 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories10
affected_packages5
assessed_packages66
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 3, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages5
Matched the pypi:boltz@2.2.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 66 packages. 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

22At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.4/40Legible commit history — 42 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.42
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

37Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 2/122 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes91,444
source_files_sampled122
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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, sample
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, sample
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

4,181GitHub stars
63contributors
11commits, last 12 months
91days since last push
17releases
2bus factor
103open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 885 ⇿
0Stars
885Forks
17Releases

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.

02004006008001,000802592024-112025-102026-08
Major 2Minor 6Patch 9

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 08:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 23
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItorch>=2.2pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.26,<2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhydra-core==1.3.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpytorch-lightning==2.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrdkit>=2024.3.2pyproject.toml
PyPIdm-tree==0.1.8pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests==2.32.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=2.2.2pyproject.toml
PyPItypes-requests—pyproject.toml
PyPIeinops==0.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPIeinx==0.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfairscale==0.4.13pyproject.toml
PyPImashumaro==3.14pyproject.toml
PyPImodelcif==1.2pyproject.toml
PyPIwandb==0.18.7pyproject.toml
PyPIclick==8.1.7pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml==6.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIbiopython==1.84pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy==1.13.1pyproject.toml
PyPInumba==0.61.0pyproject.toml
PyPIgemmi==0.6.5pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn==1.6.1pyproject.toml
PyPIchembl_structure_pipeline==1.2.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 25 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbiopython1.84direct
PyPIchembl-structure-pipeline1.2.2direct
PyPIclick8.1.7direct
PyPIdm-tree0.1.8direct
PyPIeinops0.8.0direct
PyPIeinx0.3.0direct
PyPIfairscale0.4.13direct
PyPIgemmi—direct
PyPIgemmi0.6.5direct
PyPIhydra-core1.3.2direct
PyPImashumaro3.14direct
PyPImodelcif1.2direct
PyPInumba0.61.0direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPIpytorch-lightning2.5.0direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2direct
PyPIrdkit—direct
PyPIrequests2.32.3direct
PyPIscikit-learn—direct
PyPIscikit-learn1.6.1direct
PyPIscipy1.13.1direct
PyPItorch—direct
PyPItypes-requests—direct
PyPIwandb0.18.7direct
PyPIp-tqdm—indirect
PyPIpdbeccdutils—indirect
PyPIredis—indirect
Dependency advisories 5

Installing pypi:boltz@2.2.1 pulls in 66 packages, direct and transitive: 5 carry known advisories, of which 5 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.1.7directhigh18.3.3
hydra-core1.3.2directhigh11.3.4
pytorch-lightning2.5.0directhigh2—
biopython1.84.0directmoderate21.87
requests2.32.3directmoderate42.33.0

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with jwohlwend/boltz. Read them side by side →

69abhishektiwari/hbatHBAT 2: A Python Package to analyse Hydrogen Bonds and Other Non-covalent Interactions in Macromolecular Structures https://hbat-web.abhishek-tiwari.comGood57BioPandas/biopandasWorking with molecular structures in pandas DataFramesModerate95scverse/pertpySingle-cell perturbation analysisExceptional93ersilia-os/ersiliaThe Ersilia Model Hub, an open-source repository and CLI of AI/ML models for infectious and neglected disease research.Exceptional90biopython/biopythonOfficial git repository for Biopython (originally converted from CVS)Excellent86K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skillsTurn any AI agent into an AI Scientist. The #1 Agent Skills library for science, used by 170,000+ scientists worldwide. 158 ready-to-use skills plus 100+ scientific databases covering biology, chemistry, medicine, and drug discovery. Compatible with Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, Pi, Antigravity, and the open Agent Skills standard.Excellent

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 — PyPI.