Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 16:11 UTC

streamlink / streamlink

Streamlink is a CLI utility which pipes video streams from various services into a video player

PythonBSD-2-Clause★ 11,763 stars⑂ 1,200 forkssince Sep 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolDesktop applicationLibraryhow this is determined

streamlink/streamlink holds a health index of 98 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (68/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

98
overall / 100
Exceptional

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

98
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 86 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

streamlinkOrganization
309 followers18 public repossince Sep 2016

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIstreamlink8.6.1-1091 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 484 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year484
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~30.6 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag8.6.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases30.6

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

95Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 11,763 stars
25/25Forks — 1,200 forks
12.9/15Watchers — 212 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,200
stars11,763
watchers212
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.399
How it's scored
41.2/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance — 3,038/3,365 decided PRs merged
8.1/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/8 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs3,038
open_issues60
closed_issues3,061
prs_merged_7d14
prs_decided_7d16
prs_merged_30d47
prs_decided_30d53
issue_closed_ratio0.981
closed_unmerged_prs327
first_time_authors_30d6
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d8
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.9/25Owner reach — 309 followers of streamlink
21.3/25Track record — 18 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers309
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginstreamlink
public_repos18
account_age_days3,652

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 109 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesstreamlink
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://streamlink.github.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsstreamlink, python, livestream, twitch, cli, streaming, vlc, streaming-services
has_wikino
homepagehttps://streamlink.github.io/
docs_sitehttps://streamlink.github.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

72Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages91
unassessed_packages16
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 91 resolved dependencies against OSV. 16 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.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
31/40Legible commit history — 54 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.581
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/streamlink/py.typed, src/streamlink_cli/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/streamlink/py.typed, src/streamlink_cli/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.07
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/streamlink/py.typed, src/streamlink_cli/py.typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 5/518 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes157,731
source_files_sampled518
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

11,763GitHub stars
99contributors
484commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
60open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'streamlink' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:streamlink@8.6.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,200 ⇿
0Stars
1,200Forks
91Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

2004006008001,0001,2001,20082018-052022-072026-09
Major 8Minor 45Patch 38

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-17 16:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcertifi—pyproject.toml
PyPIexceptiongroup—pyproject.toml
PyPIisodate—pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml>=5.0.0,<8pyproject.toml
PyPIpycountry—pyproject.toml
PyPIpycryptodome>=3.4.3,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIPySocks>=1.5.6,!=1.5.7pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.30.0,<3pyproject.toml
PyPItrio>=0.25.0,<1pyproject.toml
PyPItrio>=0.22.0,<1pyproject.toml
PyPItrio-websocket>=0.9.0,<1pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions>=4.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIurllib3>=2.0.0,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIwebsocket-client>=1.2.1,<2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 107

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 85 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22direct
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1direct
PyPIisodate0.7.2direct
PyPIlxml—direct
PyPIlxml6.1.3direct
PyPIpycountry26.2.16direct
PyPIpycryptodome—direct
PyPIpycryptodome3.23.0direct
PyPIpysocks—direct
PyPIpysocks1.7.1direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPItrio—direct
PyPItrio0.34.0direct
PyPItrio-websocket—direct
PyPItrio-websocket0.12.2direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIurllib32.8.0direct
PyPIwebsocket-client—direct
PyPIwebsocket-client1.9.2direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackports-zstd1.5.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIbrotli1.2.0indirect
PyPIbrotlicffi1.2.0.1indirect
PyPIbuild1.5.0indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIfreezegun—indirect
PyPIfreezegun1.5.5indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata9.0.0indirect
PyPIinflection0.5.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPIlxml-stubs0.5.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPImyst-parser4.0.1indirect
PyPImyst-parser5.1.0indirect
PyPIorjson3.11.9indirect
PyPIoutcome1.3.0.post0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-trio0.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests-mock1.12.1indirect
PyPIruff0.15.15indirect
PyPIruff0.16.7indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools84.0.0indirect
PyPIshtab1.11.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-design—indirect
PyPIsphinx-design0.6.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-design0.7.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPIty0.0.43indirect
PyPIty0.0.81indirect
PyPItypes-docutils0.23.0.20260911indirect
PyPItypes-freezegun1.1.10indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools84.0.0.20260812indirect
PyPIversioningit—indirect
PyPIversioningit3.3.0indirect
PyPIwsproto1.3.2indirect
PyPIzipp4.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 91 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.