Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 02:33 UTC

linkedin / isolation-forest

A distributed Spark/Scala implementation of the isolation forest and extended isolation forest algorithms for unsupervised outlier detection, featuring support for scalable training and ONNX export for easy cross-platform inference.

Scala · PythonCustom license★ 265 stars⑂ 54 forkssince Jul 2019View on GitHub ↗

linkedin/isolation-forest holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (55/100). It was last updated 75 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LinkedInOrganization · verified domain
2,650 followers135 public repossince Aug 2010

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIisolation-forest-onnx4.1.81312775 days agoisolation-forestonnx

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 75 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push75
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 55 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 75 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~19.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count55
latest_release_tagv4.1.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release75
mean_days_between_releases19.4
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.3/60Stars — 265 stars
14.4/25Forks — 54 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks54
stars265
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
28.3/80Monthly downloads — 131 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesisolation-forest-onnx
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads131
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.839
How it's scored
40/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
25.2/30PR acceptance — 53/63 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs53
open_issues1
closed_issues20
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.952
closed_unmerged_prs10
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
24.6/25Owner reach — 2,650 followers of linkedin
25/25Track record — 135 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,650
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginlinkedin
public_repos135
account_age_days5,916

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 75 days ago
20/20Version history — 27 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesisolation-forest-onnx
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish75

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — isolation-forest-onnx/pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), isolation-forest-onnx/setup.cfg ([flake8])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsisolation-forest, spark, linkedin, outlier-detection, unsupervised-learning, machine-learning, scala, anomaly-detection, onnx
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages11
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:isolation-forest-onnx@4.1.8 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 11 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.1/40Legible commit history — 39 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.433
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — build.gradle, isolation-forest-onnx/build.gradle, isolation-forest/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — isolation-forest-onnx/pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), isolation-forest-onnx/setup.cfg ([flake8])
11/11Static type checking — Scala (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.06
toolchain_manifestsbuild.gradle, isolation-forest-onnx/build.gradle, isolation-forest/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Scala (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/35 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageScala
largest_source_bytes20,643
source_files_sampled35
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

265GitHub stars
5contributors
15commits, last 12 months
75days since last push
55releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Maven, 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 ★ / 54 ⇿
0Stars
54Forks
51Releases

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.

01020304050605422019-082023-012026-07
Major 4Minor 4Patch 43

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 02:32 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests14 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 10/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIavro_python3==1.9.1isolation-forest-onnx/setup.cfg
PyPInumpy==2.2.6isolation-forest-onnx/setup.cfg
PyPIonnx==1.22.0isolation-forest-onnx/setup.cfg
PyPIonnxruntime==1.24.1isolation-forest-onnx/setup.cfg
PyPIprotobuf==5.29.6isolation-forest-onnx/setup.cfg
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIavro-python31.9.1direct
PyPInumpy2.2.6direct
PyPIonnx1.22.0direct
PyPIonnxruntime1.24.1direct
PyPIprotobuf5.29.6direct
PyPIcoverage7.6.1indirect
PyPIflake87.1.1indirect
PyPImypy1.11indirect
PyPIpandas2.2.3indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPItwine6.2.0indirect
PyPIwheel0.46.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:isolation-forest-onnx@4.1.8 pulls in 11 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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.