# vishal2612200/agentpack — health index 66/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository vishal2612200/agentpack by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 66 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate 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/vishal2612200/agentpack
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/vishal2612200/agentpack
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/vishal2612200/agentpack/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/v/vishal2612200/agentpack.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-18
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.12.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 77/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 62/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 80/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 47/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 88/100 | Excellent |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Local context engine for AI coding agents. Routes tasks to relevant files, tests, rules, and skills, supports prompt caching, and builds compact context packs for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, MCP, and more. |
| Homepage | https://vishal2612200.github.io/agentpack/ |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | AGPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 21 |
| Forks | 12 |
| Created | 2026-04-28 |
| Last push | 2026-07-17 |
| Latest release | v0.4.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 455 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | ai-coding-agent, claude-code, code-analysis, code-analysis-tool, codex, context-engine, cursor, developer-tools, developer-tools-productivity, mcp, prompt-engineering, prompt-engineering-tool, windsurf, good-first-issue, help-wanted, cli, python, first-timers-only |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @vishal2612200/agentpack | 0.4.0 | 2,503 |
| pypi | agentpack-cli | 0.3.39 | — |

## Vitality — 77/100 (Good)

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

### Development activity — 62/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 7.6 / 36 | 11/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 455 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 4 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 2 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~3.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### 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 — 58/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 30/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 21.1 / 60 | 21 stars |
| Forks | partial | 8.7 / 25 | 12 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (AGPL-3.0) |
| 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 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 57/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 45.3 / 80 | 2,503 downloads/month across npm, pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 62/100 (Moderate)

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) — 34/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 1.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 93% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 12 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 66/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 26 / 46.8 | 56% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 32.4 / 38.2 | 44/52 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 7.5 / 15 | Found 14/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 60/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 13.3 / 25 | 70 followers of vishal2612200 |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 129 public repos, account ~8 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 2 package(s) on npm, pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 2 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 66 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 80/100 (Good)

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

### Engineering practices — 66/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 8 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 18 / 20 | 21 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://vishal2612200.github.io/agentpack/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 18 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 47/100 (At risk)

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 — 47/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | 21 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | Found 14/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | not met | 0 / 10 | dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |
| SAST | partial | 4.5 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9 |
| Security-Policy | partial | 2 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### 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 — 88/100 (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 — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .cursor/rules/agentpack.mdc, .cursorrules, .github/copilot-instructions.md, .windsurfrules, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt present |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 78/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | frontend/dashboard/tsconfig.json, native-integrations/cursor-extension/tsconfig.json, native-integrations/windsurf-extension/tsconfig.json |
| 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 | partial | 4 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |

### Code legibility for models — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (frontend/dashboard/tsconfig.json, native-integrations/cursor-extension/tsconfig.json, native-integrations/windsurf-extension/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.4 / 55 | 13/442 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | tests/fixtures/architecture_languages/schema.graphql, tests/fixtures/architecture_languages/service.proto |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## 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