Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 00:45 UTC

langchain-ai / langchain-community

⚠️ No longer maintained, see linked issue

PythonMIT★ 287 stars⑂ 471 forkssince Apr 2025archivedView on GitHub ↗

langchain-ai/langchain-community holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on Security (58/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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)

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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LangChainOrganization

20,912 followers251 public repossince Mar 2023

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?

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

65Good

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

archived on GitHub by its maintainersOverall rating: Critical ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 27 days ago
18/36	Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 116 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	116
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	27
active_weeks_last_year	26

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 55 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~37.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	13
latest_release_tag	libs/community/v0.4.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	55
mean_days_between_releases	37.3

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?

78Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

65Good

How it's scored

39.8/60	Stars — 287 stars
22.3/25	Forks — 471 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	471
stars	287
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

77Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

74Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 19% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 63 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	63
top_contributor_share	0.19

Issue & PR responsiveness

64Moderate

How it's scored

41.8/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
11/30	PR acceptance — 164/447 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	164
open_issues	1
closed_issues	227
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.996
closed_unmerged_prs	283
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

94Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25	Owner reach — 20,912 followers of langchain-ai
19.8/25	Track record — 251 public repos, account ~3 yr old

Inputs used

followers	20,912
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	langchain-ai
public_repos	251
account_age_days	1,233

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain-community/issues/674
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain-community/issues/674
docs_site	https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain-community/issues/674
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

58Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project is archived
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 44 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.8

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

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.

79Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	8,370

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

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

73Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — libs/community/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — libs/community/langchain_community/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	libs/community/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	libs/community/langchain_community/py.typed
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

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

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (libs/community/langchain_community/py.typed)
54.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 6/2,037 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	92,621
source_files_sampled	2,037
oversized_source_files	6

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

287GitHub stars

63contributors

116commits, last 12 months

27days since last push

13releases

3bus factor

1open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10

5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 00:45 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project is archived
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	44 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.