# open-edge-platform/edge-ai-libraries — health index 19/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository open-edge-platform/edge-ai-libraries by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical 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/open-edge-platform/edge-ai-libraries
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/open-edge-platform/edge-ai-libraries
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/open-edge-platform/edge-ai-libraries/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/open-edge-platform/edge-ai-libraries.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-17
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 97/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 75/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 89/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 72/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 19/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 90/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Libraries, microservices, tools, and other reference software, supporting development of performance-optimized Edge AI applications. |
| Classification | network-service, mcp-server |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 156 |
| Forks | 139 |
| Created | 2025-03-05 |
| Last push | 2026-08-14 |
| Latest release | 2026.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,179 |
| Bus factor | 15 |
| Topics | libraries, microservices, samples, tools |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | metrics-manager | 0.3.0 | — |
| pypi | inference-router | 0.0.2 | — |

## Vitality — 97/100 (Exceptional)

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 2 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1179 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 6 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 59 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~83.2 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 8 days ago |

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

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

### Popularity & adoption — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 35.5 / 60 | 156 stars |
| Forks | partial | 17.8 / 25 | 139 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 8.1 / 15 | 30 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

## Sustainability & Governance — 89/100 (Excellent)

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) — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 15 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 21.3 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 5% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 99 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 85/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 36 / 42 | 86% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 25 / 30 | 2230/2678 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 — 81/100 (Excellent)

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 | 18.9 / 25 | 426 followers of open-edge-platform |
| Track record | partial | 16 / 25 | 61 public repos, account ~1 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 72/100 (Good)

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 | 33 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.js, 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 — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 4 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 19/100 (Critical)

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 — 19/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized. A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to Security posture and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | no dependency manifests — not applicable |
| CodeQL workflow | met | 20 / 20 | — |

### Dependency advisories — 19/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2851 resolved dependencies against OSV; 68 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 | 1.7 / 35 | 28 affected: pillow 12.2.0 (critical 9.1), aiohttp 3.13.5 (high 7.5), gradio 6.14.0 (high 7.5), +25 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 | 12.3 / 40 | 12 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 503 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 35/100 (Weak)

1 resolved dependency(ies) resolve to a version the registry still serves and the OpenSSF corpus reports as malicious. Direct and indirect are treated alike: an install-time payload runs at any depth in the graph. A report here concerns the package as published, not the maintainers of this repository, which may have resolved it unknowingly.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | partial | 35 / 100 | 1 reported as malicious: http 0.0.1-security |

### 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 — 90/100 (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, microservices/multimodal-embedding-serving/AGENTS.md, microservices/multimodal-embedding-serving/CLAUDE.md, microservices/visual-data-preparation-for-retrieval/multimodal-dataprep/AGENTS.md, microservices/visual-data-preparation-for-retrieval/multimodal-dataprep/CLAUDE.md, sample-applications/chat-question-and-answer-core/AGENTS.md, sample-applications/chat-question-and-answer-core/CLAUDE.md, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/AGENTS.md, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/CLAUDE.md, tools/visual-pipeline-and-platform-evaluation-tool/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 84 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | libraries/edge-control-libraries/plcopen-motion-control/Makefile, libraries/robotics-ai-libraries/orb-extractor/Makefile, microservices/dlstreamer-pipeline-server/Makefile, microservices/metrics-manager/Makefile, microservices/model-download/Makefile, microservices/semantic-search-agent/Makefile, sample-applications/chat-question-and-answer-core/Makefile, sample-applications/document-summarization/Makefile, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/Makefile, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/cli/Makefile, tools/visual-pipeline-and-platform-evaluation-tool/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | microservices/inference-router/ui/tsconfig.json, sample-applications/chat-question-and-answer-core/ui/tsconfig.json, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/pipeline-manager/tsconfig.json, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/ui/react/tsconfig.json, tools/visual-pipeline-and-platform-evaluation-tool/pyrightconfig.json, tools/visual-pipeline-and-platform-evaluation-tool/ui/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 4 / 10 | 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (microservices/inference-router/ui/tsconfig.json, sample-applications/chat-question-and-answer-core/ui/tsconfig.json, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/pipeline-manager/tsconfig.json, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/ui/react/tsconfig.json, tools/visual-pipeline-and-platform-evaluation-tool/pyrightconfig.json, tools/visual-pipeline-and-platform-evaluation-tool/ui/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.5 / 55 | 22/2255 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | microservices/model-download/docs/user-guide/_assets/openapi.yaml, microservices/multilevel-video-understanding/docs/user-guide/_assets/openapi.yaml, microservices/multimodal-embedding-serving/docs/user-guide/api-docs/openapi.yaml, microservices/time-series-analytics/docs/user-guide/_assets/openapi.json, microservices/time-series-analytics/docs/user-guide/_assets/openapi.yaml, microservices/vector-retriever/vector-retriever/docs/user-guide/api-docs/openapi.yaml, microservices/visual-data-preparation-for-retrieval/multimodal-dataprep/docs/user-guide/api-docs/openapi.yaml, sample-applications/video-search-and-summarization/search-ms/docs/user-guide/api-docs/openapi.yaml |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, examples, notebooks, sample, samples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 20 authors (cap 12)
- Could not fetch pypi package 'kvweave.kvweave_quant' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'video_chunking' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'kvweave' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'audio-analyzer' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'model-download' from its registry
- pypi package 'metrics-manager' points at a different repository (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/metrics_manager/); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- pypi package 'inference-router' points at a different repository (https://github.com/saidkaban/inference-router); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch pypi package 'alert-agent-service' from its registry
- Advisory severity resolved for 120 of 190 advisories (lookup cap); the remainder are reported as unknown severity
- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code -9); 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