# langgenius/dify — health index 87/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository langgenius/dify by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent 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/langgenius/dify
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/langgenius/dify
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/langgenius/dify/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/l/langgenius/dify.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-13
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.9.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 93/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 62/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 89/100 | Excellent |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Production-ready platform for agentic workflow development. |
| Homepage | https://dify.ai |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| Stars | 148,611 |
| Forks | 23,425 |
| Created | 2023-04-12 |
| Last push | 2026-07-13 |
| Latest release | 1.16.0-rc1 |
| Commits (last year) | 5,322 |
| Bus factor | 11 |
| Topics | agent, agentic-ai, agentic-framework, agentic-workflow, ai, automation, gemini, genai, gpt, gpt-4, llm, low-code, mcp, nextjs, no-code, openai, orchestration, python, rag, workflow |

## 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 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 5322 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 6 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 3 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~16.5 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 — 93/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 148,611 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 23,425 forks |
| Watchers | met | 15 / 15 | 818 watchers |

### Community health — 86/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| 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 — 88/100 (Excellent)

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) — 98/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 11 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 20.7 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 8% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 24 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 46 / 46.8 | 98% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 31.4 / 38.2 | 12270/14940 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 73/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 3,597 followers of langgenius |
| Track record | partial | 18.4 / 25 | 39 public repos, account ~3 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 90/100 (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 | 32 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .ruff.toml, 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 — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://dify.ai |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 62/100 (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 — 62/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 0.8 / 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 | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 24 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 | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 6 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 | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 29 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 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, api/AGENTS.md, cli/AGENTS.md, cli/src/commands/AGENTS.md, dify-agent/AGENTS.md, e2e/AGENTS.md, e2e/features/agent-v2/AGENTS.md, packages/dify-ui/AGENTS.md, web/AGENTS.md, web/CLAUDE.md, web/features/agent-v2/AGENTS.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, dify-agent/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .ruff.toml, eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | api/providers/trace/trace-aliyun/src/dify_trace_aliyun/py.typed, api/providers/trace/trace-arize-phoenix/src/dify_trace_arize_phoenix/py.typed, api/providers/trace/trace-langfuse/src/dify_trace_langfuse/py.typed, api/providers/trace/trace-langsmith/src/dify_trace_langsmith/py.typed, api/providers/trace/trace-mlflow/src/dify_trace_mlflow/py.typed, api/providers/trace/trace-opik/src/dify_trace_opik/py.typed, api/providers/trace/trace-tencent/src/dify_trace_tencent/py.typed, api/providers/trace/trace-weave/src/dify_trace_weave/py.typed, cli/tsconfig.json, dify-agent/src/shellctl/py.typed, dify-agent/src/shellctl_runtime/py.typed, e2e/tsconfig.json, packages/contracts/tsconfig.json, packages/dev-proxy/tsconfig.json, packages/dify-ui/tsconfig.json, packages/jotai-tanstack-form/tsconfig.json, packages/migrate-no-unchecked-indexed-access/tsconfig.json, sdks/nodejs-client/tsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, 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 | 54.5 / 55 | 100/10620 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | dify-agent/proto/dify/agent/stub/v1/agent_stub.proto |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch pypi package 'dify-api' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package '@langgenius/difyctl' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'dify-agent' 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