Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-08 15:13 UTC

tile-ai / tilelang

Domain-specific language designed to streamline the development of high-performance GPU/CPU/Accelerators kernels

Python · C++Custom license★ 8,515 stars⑂ 864 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗

tile-ai/tilelang holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (59/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

tile-aiOrganization

743 followers29 public repossince Oct 2024

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	tilelang	0.1.15	2,763,679	24	8 days ago	blas cuda hip code-generation tvm

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36	Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,325 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,325
human_commit_share	0.97
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	52

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 23 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~30.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	23
latest_release_tag	v0.1.15
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	8
mean_days_between_releases	30.3

Community & Adoption

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

87Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

94Exceptional

How it's scored

60/60	Stars — 8,515 stars
24.5/25	Forks — 864 forks
9.1/15	Watchers — 45 watchers

Inputs used

forks	864
stars	8,515
watchers	45
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

79Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

76Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

72Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 45% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 97 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	97
top_contributor_share	0.45

Issue & PR responsiveness

71Good

How it's scored

30.9/42	Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed
26.2/30	PR acceptance — 2,003/2,291 decided PRs merged
4.9/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 6/16 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 20/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	2,003
open_issues	250
closed_issues	694
prs_merged_7d	16
prs_decided_7d	23
prs_merged_30d	39
prs_decided_30d	58
issue_closed_ratio	0.735
closed_unmerged_prs	288
first_time_authors_30d	7
first_time_prs_merged_30d	6
first_time_prs_decided_30d	16

Ownership & stewardship

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
20.6/25	Owner reach — 743 followers of tile-ai
14.8/25	Track record — 29 public repos, account ~2 yr old

Inputs used

followers	743
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	tile-ai
public_repos	29
account_age_days	736

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20	Version history — 24 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	tilelang
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

98Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

80Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://tilelang.com/
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://tilelang.com/
docs_site	https://tilelang.com/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 20/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 19 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	4.9

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	36
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:tilelang@0.1.15 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 36 packages. 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.

65Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 92 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.948
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

75Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
6/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.03
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.01

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 40/1,717 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	738,681
source_files_sampled	1,717
oversized_source_files	40

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples, notebooks

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples, notebooks
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

8,515GitHub stars

97contributors

1,325commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

23releases

3bus factor

250open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 25 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 864 ⇿

0Stars

864Forks

23Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 1Patch 16

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10

4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-08 15:12 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9	CI-Tests	29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6	Code-Review	Found 20/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	19 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	apache-tvm-ffi	`>=0.1.11,<0.1.13`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torch-c-dlpack-ext	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cloudpickle	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ml-dtypes	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	numpy	`>=1.23.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psutil	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torch	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torch	`>=2.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tqdm	`>=4.62.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`>=4.10.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	z3-solver	`>=4.13.0,<4.15.5`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 66

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 55 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	apache-tvm-ffi	`—`	direct
PyPI	cloudpickle	`—`	direct
PyPI	ml-dtypes	`—`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`—`	direct
PyPI	psutil	`—`	direct
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	direct
PyPI	torch	`—`	direct
PyPI	torch-c-dlpack-ext	`—`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
PyPI	z3-solver	`—`	direct
PyPI	astroid	`—`	indirect
PyPI	auditwheel	`—`	indirect
PyPI	build	`—`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`—`	indirect
PyPI	clang-format	`21.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	cmake	`—`	indirect
PyPI	codespell	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	cpplint	`—`	indirect
PyPI	cuda-python	`13.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	cython	`—`	indirect
PyPI	delocate	`—`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`—`	indirect
PyPI	dtlib	`—`	indirect
PyPI	einops	`—`	indirect
PyPI	fast-hadamard-transform	`—`	indirect
PyPI	fastapi	`—`	indirect
PyPI	flash-attn	`—`	indirect
PyPI	flash-attn	`2.5.8`	indirect
PyPI	flash-linear-attention	`0.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`—`	indirect
PyPI	lm-eval	`0.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib	`—`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ninja	`—`	indirect
PyPI	nvidia-cutlass-dsl	`4.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`—`	indirect
PyPI	patchelf	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-durations	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-timeout	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.14.14`	indirect
PyPI	safetensors	`—`	indirect
PyPI	scikit-build-core	`—`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	seaborn	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autoapi	`3.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-reredirects	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-tabs	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-toolbox	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-httpdomain	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-napoleon	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tilelang	`0.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	tornado	`—`	indirect
PyPI	transformers	`—`	indirect
PyPI	transformers	`5.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	uvicorn	`—`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:tilelang@0.1.15 pulls in 36 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records