# omnigent-ai/omnigent — health index 92/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository omnigent-ai/omnigent by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 92 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/omnigent-ai/omnigent
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/omnigent-ai/omnigent
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/omnigent-ai/omnigent/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/omnigent-ai/omnigent.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-05
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 76/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 75/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 100/100 | Exceptional |
| Security | 16% | 48/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 89/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Omnigent is an open-source AI agent framework and meta-harness: orchestrate Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Pi, and custom agents — swap harnesses without rewriting, enforce policies and sandboxing, and collaborate in real time from any device. |
| Classification | network-service, cli, mcp-server, mobile, web-ui, library |
| Homepage | https://omnigent.ai |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 8,140 |
| Forks | 1,220 |
| Created | 2026-06-11 |
| Last push | 2026-08-05 |
| Latest release | v0.8.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 2,320 |
| Bus factor | 3 |
| Topics | agents, ai, ai-agents, developer-tools, llm, ml, python, agent-framework, agent-governance, agent-orchestration, ai-agent, claude-code, codex, coding-agents, multi-agent, sandbox |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | omnigent | 0.8.2 | — |

## Vitality — 76/100 (Good)

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

### Development activity — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 5.5 / 36 | 8/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 2320 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 9 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 1 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~5.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 86/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 8,140 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,220 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 8.5 / 15 | 35 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 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 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 75/100 (Good)

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) — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 36 / 54 | 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 16.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 26% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 98 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 47 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 63/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 21.7 / 42 | 52% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 24.1 / 30 | 2316/2883 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 6/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 4.5 / 15 | Found 10/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 64/100 (Moderate)

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 | 16.2 / 25 | 177 followers of omnigent-ai |
| Track record | partial | 5.4 / 25 | 4 public repos, account ~0 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 | 27 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Engineering practices — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 69 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 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 — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://omnigent.ai |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 16 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 48/100 (Weak)

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 — 41/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| 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 | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | Found 10/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 47 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | not met | 0 / 10 | 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 | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 3 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |
| SAST | partial | 2.5 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5 |
| Security-Policy | partial | 4.5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 55 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 74/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2883 resolved dependencies against OSV; 670 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 | 15.7 / 35 | 1 affected: react-router-dom 6.30.4 (moderate 6.9) |
| 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 | met | 40 / 40 | no advisory has been public longer than 90 days |

### 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 — 89/100 (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 | .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, dev/repro-agent/AGENTS.md, omnigent/onboarding/agent/AGENTS.md, tests/e2e/AGENTS.md, tests/integration/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 97 of 97 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 | justfile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | editors/vscode/tsconfig.json, omnigent/py.typed, sdks/python-client/omnigent_client/py.typed, sdks/ui/omnigent_ui_sdk/py.typed, web/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 8 / 10 | 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| 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 — 79/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (editors/vscode/tsconfig.json, omnigent/py.typed, sdks/python-client/omnigent_client/py.typed, sdks/ui/omnigent_ui_sdk/py.typed, web/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 52.3 / 55 | 143/2933 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | omnigent/api/routing/v1/routing.proto, openapi.json |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples, notebooks |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 31 authors (cap 12)
- Resolved dependency list truncated to 3000 of 3553 packages (counts remain complete)
- deps.dev does not index pypi:omnigent@0.8.2; 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