# kubeflow/pipelines — health index 19/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository kubeflow/pipelines by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical 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/kubeflow/pipelines
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/kubeflow/pipelines
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/kubeflow/pipelines/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/k/kubeflow/pipelines.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-08
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 100/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 94/100 | Exceptional |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 92/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Security | 16% | 24/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 87/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 84 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Machine Learning Pipelines for Kubeflow |
| Classification | cli, web-ui |
| Homepage | https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/components/pipelines/ |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 4,182 |
| Forks | 2,084 |
| Created | 2018-05-12 |
| Last push | 2026-08-07 |
| Latest release | 2.17.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 833 |
| Bus factor | 8 |
| Topics | kubeflow-pipelines, mlops, kubeflow, machine-learning, kubernetes, pipeline, data-science |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/kubeflow/pipelines | v0.0.0-20260807182808-1630f8063b34 | — |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Development activity — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 1 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 833 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 — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 30 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~25.1 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 14 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 94/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 95/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 58.7 / 60 | 4,182 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 2,084 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 11 / 15 | 95 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 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 92/100 (Excellent)

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) — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 8 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 20 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 11% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 98 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 17 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 40 / 42 | 95% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 22.6 / 30 | 6879/9126 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | partial | 8.7 / 13 | 2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 13.5 / 15 | Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 98/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| Owner reach | partial | 24.4 / 25 | 2,449 followers of kubeflow |
| Track record | partial | 24.4 / 25 | 49 public repos, account ~8 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 1 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 1 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 96/100 (Exceptional)

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 42 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yaml, .pylintrc, tox.ini |
| 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 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/components/pipelines/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 7 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 24/100 (At Risk)

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 — 19/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to Security posture and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all 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 | partial | 1.2 / 2.5 | badge detected: Passing |
| Code-Review | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 17 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is 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 | partial | 0.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| SAST | partial | 3.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 28 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 42/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1949 resolved dependencies against OSV; 25 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 | partial | 6.1 / 35 | 4 affected: google.golang.org/grpc 1.36.0 (critical 9.1), github.com/golang/glog 0.0.0-20160126235308-23def4e6c14b (high 7.1), google.golang.org/protobuf 1.27.1 (high 7.5), +1 more |
| 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 | partial | 25.1 / 40 | 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1017 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 35/100 (Weak)

1 resolved dependency(ies) resolve to a version the registry still serves and the OpenSSF corpus reports as malicious. Direct and indirect are treated alike: an install-time payload runs at any depth in the graph. A report here concerns the package as published, not the maintainers of this repository, which may have resolved it unknowingly.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | partial | 35 / 100 | 1 reported as malicious: fs 0.0.1-security |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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 — 87/100 (Excellent)

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 — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 73 of 73 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, api/Makefile, backend/Makefile, backend/api/Makefile, backend/src/crd/kubernetes/Makefile, backend/src/v2/Makefile, backend/src/v2/compiler/testdata/Makefile, backend/test/integration/Makefile, docs/diagram/Makefile, docs/sdk/Makefile, justfile, kubernetes_platform/Makefile, kubernetes_platform/python/docs/Makefile, manifests/kustomize/Makefile, sdk/Makefile, third_party/argo/Makefile, third_party/ml-metadata/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yaml, .pylintrc, tox.ini |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | frontend/mock-backend/tsconfig.json, frontend/server/tsconfig.json, frontend/tsconfig.json, mypy.ini |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 6 / 10 | 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 27 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (frontend/mock-backend/tsconfig.json, frontend/server/tsconfig.json, frontend/tsconfig.json, mypy.ini) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.4 / 55 | 28/2768 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | api/v2alpha1/cache_key.proto, api/v2alpha1/pipeline_spec.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/auth.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/error.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/experiment.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/filter.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/healthz.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/job.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/parameter.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/pipeline.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/pipeline_spec.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/report.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/resource_reference.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/run.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/task.proto, backend/api/v1beta1/visualization.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/auth.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/experiment.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/filter.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/google/rpc/status.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/healthz.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/pipeline.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/recurring_run.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/report.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/run.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/runtime_config.proto, backend/api/v2beta1/visualization.proto, components/google-cloud/google_cloud_pipeline_components/proto/gcp_resources.proto, components/google-cloud/google_cloud_pipeline_components/proto/task_error.proto, components/google-cloud/google_cloud_pipeline_components/proto/template_metadata.proto, kubernetes_platform/proto/kubernetes_executor_config.proto, proposals/12147-mlmd-removal/protos/artifacts.proto, proposals/12147-mlmd-removal/protos/runs.proto, third_party/ml-metadata/ml_metadata/proto/metadata_store.proto, third_party/ml-metadata/ml_metadata/proto/metadata_store_service.proto |
| MCP server | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | notebooks, sample, samples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch pypi package 'kfpr' from its registry

## 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