Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 20:46 UTC

unum-cloud / USearch

Fast Open-Source Search & Clustering engine × for Vectors & Arbitrary Objects × in C++, C, Python, JavaScript, Rust, Java, Objective-C, Swift, C#, GoLang, and Wolfram 🔍

C++ · PythonApache-2.0★ 4,270 stars⑂ 341 forkssince Feb 2023View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

#kann #vector-search #approximate-nearest-neighbor-search #simd #search #similarity-search #database #faiss #search-engine #webassembly #clustering #nearest-neighbor-search #recommender-system #semantic-search #full-text-search #fuzzy-search #text-search #image-search

unum-cloud/USearch holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (88/100) and lowest on Security (57/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

UnumOrganization · verified domain

710 followers19 public repossince Oct 2019

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
crates.io	usearch	2.26.1	127,397	204	0 days ago
npm	usearch	2.26.1	120,010	174	0 days ago
Go	github.com/unum-cloud/USearch	v2.26.1+incompatible	-	210	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

80Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36	Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 263 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	263
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	23

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~29.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v2.26.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	29.5

Community & Adoption

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

88Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

89Excellent

How it's scored

58.9/60	Stars — 4,270 stars
21.1/25	Forks — 341 forks
9.3/15	Watchers — 49 watchers

Inputs used

forks	341
stars	4,270
watchers	49
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
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	4
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

90Excellent

How it's scored

71.9/80	Monthly downloads — 247,407 downloads/month across crates, go, npm
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	usearch, usearch, github.com/unum-cloud/USearch
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates, go, npm
total_downloads	950,017
monthly_downloads	247,407
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

75Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	100
top_contributor_share	0.727

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent

How it's scored

30.2/42	Issue resolution — 72% of issues closed
26.5/30	PR acceptance — 432/489 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 16/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	432
open_issues	77
closed_issues	197
prs_merged_7d	4
prs_decided_7d	4
prs_merged_30d	4
prs_decided_30d	4
issue_closed_ratio	0.719
closed_unmerged_prs	57
first_time_authors_30d	2
first_time_prs_merged_30d	3
first_time_prs_decided_30d	3

Ownership & stewardship

92Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
20.5/25	Owner reach — 710 followers of unum-cloud
21.5/25	Track record — 19 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	710
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	unum-cloud
public_repos	19
account_age_days	2,508

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates, go, npm
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 210 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	usearch, usearch, github.com/unum-cloud/USearch
ecosystems	crates, go, npm
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

72Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
2/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://unum.cloud/usearch
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 18 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	kann, vector-search, approximate-nearest-neighbor-search, simd, search, similarity-search, database, faiss, search-engine, webassembly, clustering, nearest-neighbor-search, recommender-system, semantic-search, full-text-search, fuzzy-search, text-search, image-search
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://unum.cloud/usearch
docs_site	https://unum.cloud/usearch
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?

57Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 3 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 16/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 14 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
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	4.6

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	11
unassessed_packages	24
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 11 resolved dependencies against OSV. 24 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

Agent context & guidance

50Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://clickhouse.com/llms.txt)
34.7/40	Legible commit history — 65 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://clickhouse.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.65
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — python/usearch/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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	yes
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	python/usearch/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, build.gradle, csharp/src/Cloud.Unum.USearch.Tests/Cloud.Unum.USearch.Tests.csproj, csharp/src/Cloud.Unum.USearch/Cloud.Unum.USearch.csproj, golang/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

94Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
49/55	Manageable file sizes — 7/64 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C++
largest_source_bytes	215,637
source_files_sampled	64
oversized_source_files	7

Key facts

4,270GitHub stars

100contributors

263commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

77open issues

crates.io, Go, Maven, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index crates:usearch@2.26.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 341 ⇿

0Stars

341Forks

99Releases

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 17Patch 82

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10

4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 20:45 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1	CI-Tests	3 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 16/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10	Contributors	project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	14 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
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	cxx	`1.0.194`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	numkong	`>=7.5.0, <8`	Cargo.toml
npm	bindings	`^1.5.0`	package.json
npm	node-addon-api	`^8.5.0`	package.json
npm	node-gyp-build	`^4.8.4`	package.json

All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	cxx	`—`	direct
crates.io	numkong	`—`	direct
npm	bindings	`^1.5.0`	direct
npm	node-addon-api	`^8.5.0`	direct
npm	node-gyp-build	`^4.8.4`	direct
crates.io	cxx-build	`—`	indirect
crates.io	fork_union	`—`	indirect
crates.io	rand	`—`	indirect
crates.io	rand_chacha	`—`	indirect
crates.io	rand_distr	`—`	indirect
npm	@types/bindings	`^1.5.5`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`^24.3.0`	indirect
npm	node-gyp	`^11.4.2`	indirect
npm	prebuildify	`^6.0.1`	indirect
npm	typescript	`^5.9.2`	indirect
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.7.0`	indirect
NuGet	xunit	`2.9.3`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.runner.visualstudio	`3.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	breathe	`4.35.0`	indirect
PyPI	cmake	`—`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2024.1.29`	indirect
PyPI	m2r2	`0.3.3.post2`	indirect
PyPI	numkong	`—`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pybind11	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-repeat	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`7.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-js	`3.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-googleanalytics	`0.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jquery	`4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 11 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 24 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.

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 — crates.io, npm, Go.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records