# lablup/backend.ai-webui — health index 77/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository lablup/backend.ai-webui by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 77 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/lablup/backend.ai-webui
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/lablup/backend.ai-webui
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/lablup/backend.ai-webui/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/l/lablup/backend.ai-webui.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-18
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.12.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 63/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 67/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 94/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 89/100 | Excellent |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Backend.AI Web UI for web / desktop app (Windows/Linux/macOS). Backend.AI Web UI provides a convenient environment for users, while allowing various commands to be executed without CLI. It also provides some visual features that are not provided by the CLI, such as dashboards and statistics. |
| Homepage | https://www.backend.ai |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | LGPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 130 |
| Forks | 80 |
| Created | 2018-10-10 |
| Last push | 2026-07-17 |
| Latest release | v26.4.3+071502 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,658 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | electron, websocket-proxy, backend, desktop, backendai, lit-element, webcomponent, reactjs |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | backend.ai-webui | — | — |

## Vitality — 96/100 (Excellent)

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

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

| 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 | 1658 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 11 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 2 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~3 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 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 63/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 56/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 34.2 / 60 | 130 stars |
| Forks | partial | 15.8 / 25 | 80 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 5.8 / 15 | 12 watchers |

### Community health — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (LGPL-3.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 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 — 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) — 43/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 10.8 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 52% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 69 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 66 contributing companies or organizations |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 41.2 / 46.8 | 88% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 33.3 / 38.2 | 3574/4103 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 10.5 / 15 | Found 22/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 16 / 25 | 168 followers of lablup |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 146 public repos, account ~11 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Publish recency. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | excluded | 0 / 35 | no data |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 0 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 94/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 19 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 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://www.backend.ai |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 8 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 61/100 (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 — 61/100 (Moderate)

| 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 22/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 66 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 | 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 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 3 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |
| SAST | partial | 4 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8 |
| 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 | partial | 1.5 / 7.5 | 8 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### 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 — 89/100 (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 — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/docs.instructions.md, .github/instructions/e2e.instructions.md, .github/instructions/github-agentic-workflows.instructions.md, .github/instructions/i18n.instructions.md, .github/instructions/react.instructions.md, .github/instructions/storybook.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, packages/backend.ai-webui-docs/CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 92/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | packages/backend.ai-client/tsconfig.json, packages/backend.ai-docs-toolkit/tsconfig.json, packages/backend.ai-ui/tsconfig.json, react/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 6 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.7 / 55 | 9/1794 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | data/client-directives.graphql, data/schema.graphql |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Resolved dependency list truncated to 2000 of 2685 packages (counts remain complete)

## 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