# mito-ds/mito — health index 73/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository mito-ds/mito by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 73 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/mito-ds/mito
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/mito-ds/mito
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/mito-ds/mito/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/m/mito-ds/mito.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.23.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 87/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 75/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 73/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 80/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 43/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 65/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Jupyter extensions that help you write code faster: Context aware AI Chat, Autocomplete, and Spreadsheet |
| Homepage | https://trymito.io |
| Primary language | Jupyter Notebook |
| Stars | 2,643 |
| Forks | 204 |
| Created | 2022-01-20 |
| Last push | 2026-07-21 |
| Latest release | mcpb-latest |
| Commits (last year) | 2,455 |
| Bus factor | 2 |
| Topics | data-science, python, data, data-visualization, data-analysis, jupyter, pandas, streamlit-component, ai, jupyterhub, jupyterlab, jupyterlab-extension |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | mitosheet | 0.2.69 | 18,439 |
| pypi | mito_ai | 0.1.69 | 607 |
| pypi | mitoinstaller | 0.0.326 | 333 |
| npm | mitosheet | 0.1.38 | 47 |
| pypi | mito-ai-cli | 0.1.1 | — |
| pypi | mito-ai-mcp | 0.1.4 | — |

## Vitality — 87/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 95/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 31.2 / 36 | 45/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 2455 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 1 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 89 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | cadence unknown (single release) |
| 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 | last human commit 47 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 75/100 (Good)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 55.5 / 60 | 2,643 stars |
| Forks | partial | 19.2 / 25 | 204 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 7.5 / 15 | 23 watchers |

### Community health — 71/100 (Good)

| 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 | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 71/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 56.9 / 80 | 18,439 downloads/month across pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 73/100 (Good)

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) — 63/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 13.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 38% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 20 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 10 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 24.6 / 46.8 | 53% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 33.7 / 38.2 | 1517/1720 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 12 / 15 | Found 4/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 14.3 / 25 | 96 followers of mito-ds |
| Track record | partial | 23.2 / 25 | 34 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 3 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 0 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 500 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 80/100 (Good)

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

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 31 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.json |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://trymito.io |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 12 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 43/100 (At risk)

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 — 43/100 (At risk)

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

| 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 | 5 out of 5 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 | 6 / 7.5 | Found 4/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 10 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not 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 | 158 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 45/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1972 resolved dependencies against OSV; 735 could not be assessed (no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list). This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 7.3 / 35 | 3 affected: next 12.0.7 (critical 9.1), streamlit 1.31 (high 7.1), prismjs 1.29.0 (moderate 4.9) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 26.2 / 40 | 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1634 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### 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 — 65/100 (Moderate)

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 — 59/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .cursorrules, agent.md, mito-ai/.cursorrules, mito-ai/CLAUDE.md, trymito.io/.cursorrules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 14.1 / 40 | 26 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.json |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | evals/mypy.ini, mito-ai-core/mito_ai_core/py.typed, mito-ai/mypy.ini, mito-ai/tsconfig.json, mito-sql-cell/tsconfig.json, mitosheet-vscode/tsconfig.json, mitosheet/tsconfig.json, trymito.io/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 8 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Jupyter Notebook with type-check config (evals/mypy.ini, mito-ai-core/mito_ai_core/py.typed, mito-ai/mypy.ini, mito-ai/tsconfig.json, mito-sql-cell/tsconfig.json, mitosheet-vscode/tsconfig.json, mitosheet/tsconfig.json, trymito.io/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.9 / 55 | 5/1884 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | demos, examples, notebooks |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch npm package 'mito_ai' from its registry
- pypi package 'mito_ai' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mito-ds/monorepo); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- pypi package 'mitoinstaller' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mito-ds/monorepo); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'mitosheet' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mito/mito); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch npm package 'mito-sql-cell' from its registry
- Resolved dependency list truncated to 2000 of 2707 packages (counts remain complete)
- deps.dev does not index pypi:mitosheet@0.2.69; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

## 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