# zanllp/infinite-image-browsing — health index 63/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository zanllp/infinite-image-browsing by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 63 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/zanllp/infinite-image-browsing
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/zanllp/infinite-image-browsing
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/zanllp/infinite-image-browsing/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/z/zanllp/infinite-image-browsing.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-25
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 83/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 63/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 52/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 74/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 40/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 65/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | A full-featured image/video management app with AI-powered organization and semantic search. Supports metadata from  SD-webui, ComfyUI, Fooocus, NovelAI, StableSwarmUI, and more. Available as standalone app, SD-webui extension, or library. |
| Primary language | Vue |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 1,331 |
| Forks | 173 |
| Created | 2023-03-07 |
| Last push | 2026-07-22 |
| Latest release | v1.8.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 186 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | stable-diffusion-webui, stable-diffusion-webui-plugin, previewer, image-previewer, file-explorer, extension, gallery, comfyui, video, video-player, fooocus, novelai, stable-swarm-ui, stableswarmui, file-server, remote-explorer, audio, skills |

## Vitality — 83/100 (Good)

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

### Development activity — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 2 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 18.7 / 36 | 27/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 186 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 18 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 34 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 55 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~67.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 2 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 63/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 50.7 / 60 | 1,331 stars |
| Forks | partial | 18.6 / 25 | 173 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 5.3 / 15 | 10 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 52/100 (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) — 24/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 1.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 94% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 25 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | not met | 0 / 10 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 37.8 / 46.8 | 81% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 36.6 / 38.2 | 438/458 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 6 / 15 | Found 7/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 57/100 (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 | 12.2 / 25 | 49 followers of zanllp |
| Track record | partial | 23.7 / 25 | 39 public repos, account ~9 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 74/100 (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 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.cjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 2 / 20 | 2 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1 |

### Documentation — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 18 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 40/100 (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 — 41/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | partial | 0.2 / 2.5 | 2 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3 / 7.5 | Found 7/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4 |
| Contributors | not met | 0 / 2.5 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 18 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 147 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 35/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 871 resolved dependencies against OSV; 13 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 4 / 35 | 6 affected: vue-i18n 9.3.0-beta.19 (critical 9.8), axios 1.4.0 (high 8.7), js-cookie 3.0.5 (high 7.5), +3 more |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 22.3 / 40 | 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 989 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### 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 — 65/100 (Moderate)

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 — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 82 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | vue/src-tauri/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.cjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | vue/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Vue with type-check config (vue/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.9 / 55 | 2/99 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch crates package 'infinite_image_browsing' from its registry

## 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