# ray-project/ray — health index 90/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository ray-project/ray by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 90 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/ray-project/ray
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/ray-project/ray
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/ray-project/ray/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/r/ray-project/ray.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-17
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 100/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 89/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 73/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 85/100 | Excellent |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Ray is an AI compute engine. Ray consists of a core distributed runtime and a set of AI Libraries for accelerating ML workloads. |
| Homepage | https://ray.io |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 43,255 |
| Forks | 7,798 |
| Created | 2016-10-25 |
| Last push | 2026-07-17 |
| Latest release | ray-2.56.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 5,003 |
| Bus factor | 16 |
| Topics | ray, distributed, parallel, machine-learning, reinforcement-learning, deep-learning, python, rllib, hyperparameter-search, optimization, data-science, hyperparameter-optimization, serving, deployment, pytorch, tensorflow, llm-serving, large-language-models, llm, llm-inference |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| maven | io.ray:ray-superpom | 2.47.1 | — |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 5003 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 17 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~26.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

## Community & Adoption — 89/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 43,255 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 7,798 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 14.9 / 15 | 481 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 — 86/100 (Excellent)

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) — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 16 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 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 41 / 46.8 | 88% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 29.7 / 38.2 | 31751/40949 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 78/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 23.4 / 25 | 1,794 followers of ray-project |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 126 public repos, account ~9 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 79/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on maven |
| Publish recency | partial | 14 / 35 | latest publish 388 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 63 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 96/100 (Excellent)

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 4 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 | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://ray.io |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 73/100 (Good)

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 — 73/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### 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 — 85/100 (Excellent)

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 — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, doc/.claude/CLAUDE.md, python/ray/data/.claude/CLAUDE.md, python/ray/serve/.claude/CLAUDE.md, python/ray/train/.claude/CLAUDE.md, python/ray/tune/.claude/CLAUDE.md, rllib/.claude/CLAUDE.md, src/ray/.claude/CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 96/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | doc/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | python/ray/_private/thirdparty/dacite/py.typed, python/ray/dashboard/client/tsconfig.json, python/ray/py.typed |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 81/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (python/ray/_private/thirdparty/dacite/py.typed, python/ray/dashboard/client/tsconfig.json, python/ray/py.typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54 / 55 | 110/6179 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | doc/source/cluster/running-applications/job-submission/openapi.yml, doc/source/serve/doc_code/grpc_proxy/user_defined_protos.proto, python/ray/serve/_private/benchmarks/streaming/_grpc/test_server.proto, rllib/examples/envs/classes/multi_agent/footsies/game/proto/footsies_service.proto, rllib/examples/envs/classes/utils/cartpole_observations.proto, src/ray/protobuf/autoscaler.proto, src/ray/protobuf/common.proto, src/ray/protobuf/core_worker.proto, src/ray/protobuf/dependency.proto, src/ray/protobuf/event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/events_event_aggregator_service.proto, src/ray/protobuf/events_task_profile_events.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_actor_data.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_dataset_metadata.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_dataset_operator_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_dataset_operator_schema.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_driver_job_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_node_data.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_runtime_env.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_submission_job_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_task_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/export_train_state.proto, src/ray/protobuf/gcs.proto, src/ray/protobuf/gcs_service.proto, src/ray/protobuf/instance_manager.proto, src/ray/protobuf/logging.proto, src/ray/protobuf/node_manager.proto, src/ray/protobuf/object_manager.proto, src/ray/protobuf/profile_events.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_actor_definition_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_actor_lifecycle_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_actor_task_definition_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_base_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_driver_job_definition_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_driver_job_lifecycle_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_node_definition_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_node_lifecycle_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_placement_group_definition_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_placement_group_lifecycle_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_submission_job_definition_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_submission_job_lifecycle_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_task_definition_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/events_task_lifecycle_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/platform_event.proto, src/ray/protobuf/public/runtime_environment.proto, src/ray/protobuf/pubsub.proto, src/ray/protobuf/ray_client.proto, src/ray/protobuf/ray_syncer.proto, src/ray/protobuf/reporter.proto, src/ray/protobuf/runtime_env_agent.proto, src/ray/protobuf/runtime_env_common.proto, src/ray/protobuf/serialization.proto, src/ray/protobuf/serve.proto, src/ray/protobuf/test_service.proto, src/ray/protobuf/usage.proto, thirdparty/protobuf/extra_actions_base.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, examples, notebooks |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch pypi package 'BAZEL_SH' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'ray_release' from its registry
- Resolved dependency list truncated to 2000 of 2835 packages (counts remain complete)
- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; 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