Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-01 15:34 UTC

livekit / client-sdk-unity

Official Unity SDK for LiveKit

C#Apache-2.0★ 93 stars⑂ 66 forkssince Jan 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

livekit/client-sdk-unity holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LiveKitOrganization · verified domain
3,401 followers109 public repossince Aug 2020

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?

89Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume127 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year127
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year29

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases20 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 42 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~35.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release42
mean_days_between_releases35.5

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.9/60Stars93 stars
15.1/25Forks66 forks
6.8/15Watchers18 watchers
Inputs used
forks66
stars93
watchers18
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth16 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.432
How it's scored
36.7/42Issue resolution87% of issues closed
22.6/30PR acceptance191/253 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs191
open_issues13
closed_issues90
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.874
closed_unmerged_prs62
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach3,401 followers of livekit
25/25Track record109 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,401
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginlivekit
public_repos109
account_age_days2,213

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://livekit.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslivekit, unity, webrtc, audio, csharp, realtime, unity-sdk, video
has_wikino
homepagehttps://livekit.io
docs_sitehttps://livekit.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifestspackage.json
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno

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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://livekit.io/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history97 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://livekit.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.97
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,974
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice43 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.43
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
51.1/55Manageable file sizes11/156 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes1,442,198
source_files_sampled156
oversized_source_files11

Key facts

93GitHub stars
16contributors
127commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
20releases
2bus factor
13open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'io.livekit.livekit-sdk' from its registry
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit; 2026/09/01 15:32:02 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 66 ⇿
0Stars
66Forks
20Releases

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.

01020304050606032023-052025-012026-08
Major 2Minor 4Patch 14

Each point covers 3 days.

Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmcom.unity.nuget.newtonsoft-json3.2.1package.json
All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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.