# nomadkaraoke/karaoke-gen — health index 78/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository nomadkaraoke/karaoke-gen by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 78 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/nomadkaraoke/karaoke-gen
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/nomadkaraoke/karaoke-gen
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/nomadkaraoke/karaoke-gen/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/n/nomadkaraoke/karaoke-gen.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-16
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 53/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 59/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 23/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 87/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Generate karaoke videos, by downloading audio and lyrics, separating instrumentals, synchronising lyrics using transcription models, rendering CDG and uploading videos to YouTube / Dropbox / Google Drive |
| Classification | cli, web-ui, network-service |
| Homepage | https://gen.nomadkaraoke.com |
| Primary language | HTML |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 161 |
| Forks | 57 |
| Created | 2023-10-05 |
| Last push | 2026-08-16 |
| Latest release | v0.196.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,421 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | karaoke, karaoke-maker, lyrics, music, video |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | karaoke-gen | 0.196.0 | 4,492 |

## Vitality — 96/100 (Exceptional)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 29.8 / 36 | 43/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1421 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~0.3 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 5 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 53/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 35.8 / 60 | 161 stars |
| Forks | partial | 14.6 / 25 | 57 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 61/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 48.7 / 80 | 4,492 downloads/month across pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 59/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 15/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 4.1 / 13.5 | 3 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 68/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 20.2 / 42 | 48% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 29.1 / 30 | 852/879 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 70/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| Owner reach | partial | 12.2 / 25 | 49 followers of nomadkaraoke |
| Track record | partial | 13.8 / 25 | 20 public repos, account ~2 yr old |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 0 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 445 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 88/100 (Excellent)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 7 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://gen.nomadkaraoke.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 5 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 23/100 (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 — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | met | 25 / 25 | package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, poetry.lock |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### Dependency advisories — 15/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1247 resolved dependencies against OSV; 41 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 | 1.6 / 35 | 20 affected: aiohttp 3.13.3 (critical 9.1), black 25.12.0 (critical 9.8), nltk 3.9.2 (critical 10.0), +17 more |
| 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 | 9.3 / 40 | 17 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 503 days ago |

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

| 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 (Exceptional)

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 — 87/100 (Excellent)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 91/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | frontend/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 98 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 | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | HTML with type-check config (frontend/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 52.9 / 55 | 50/1336 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- deps.dev does not index pypi:karaoke-gen@0.196.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
- Advisory severity resolved for 120 of 175 advisories (lookup cap); the remainder are reported as unknown severity
- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (2026/08/16 20:58:21 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

## 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