Skip to the content.

CI health scoreboard

How do the workflows of some of the most-starred repos on GitHub grade under gha-doctor? A point-in-time snapshot, regenerated weekly by scoreboard.yml running scripts/scoreboard.sh — every number is reproducible with one command against public data, no clone needed:

$ gha-doctor --repo facebook/react

Snapshot: 2026-09-16 · gha-doctor 0.66.0 · last 100 completed runs per repo.

Repo Grade Score Biggest deduction
pytorch/pytorch A 94/100 workflow hygiene (−5.1): 38 warning(s), 22 info finding(s) across 85 file(s)
django/django B 85/100 success rate (−7.2): 88% of 52 decisive runs succeeded (skipped/cancelled not counted)
python/cpython B 82/100 workflow hygiene (−9.9): 20 warning(s), 11 info finding(s) across 23 file(s)
apache/airflow B 80/100 workflow hygiene (−11.6): 64 warning(s), 36 info finding(s) across 63 file(s)
sveltejs/svelte C 73/100 workflow hygiene (−11.3): 4 warning(s), 2 info finding(s) across 4 file(s)
grafana/grafana C 72/100 workflow hygiene (−18): 127 warning(s), 31 info finding(s) across 75 file(s)
nodejs/node C 71/100 workflow hygiene (−22.6): 103 warning(s), 21 info finding(s) across 48 file(s)
facebook/react D 67/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 113 warning(s), 57 info finding(s) across 26 file(s)
vuejs/core D 67/100 workflow hygiene (−16.9): 14 warning(s), 5 info finding(s) across 9 file(s)
microsoft/vscode D 65/100 workflow hygiene (−28.3): 49 warning(s), 19 info finding(s) across 19 file(s)
cli/cli D 63/100 workflow hygiene (−25.4): 30 warning(s), 22 info finding(s) across 14 file(s)
rust-lang/rust D 62/100 success rate (−19.1): 69% of 85 decisive runs succeeded (skipped/cancelled not counted)
vercel/next.js D 61/100 workflow hygiene (−22.3): 72 warning(s), 33 info finding(s) across 36 file(s)
pola-rs/polars F 58/100 workflow hygiene (−27.4): 52 warning(s), 11 info finding(s) across 20 file(s)
huggingface/transformers F 57/100 workflow hygiene (−29.6): 160 warning(s), 47 info finding(s) across 58 file(s)
angular/angular F 56/100 workflow hygiene (−26.2): 34 warning(s), 0 info finding(s) across 13 file(s)
microsoft/typescript F 55/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 41 warning(s), 8 info finding(s) across 11 file(s)
pandas-dev/pandas F 50/100 workflow hygiene (−29.5): 40 warning(s), 17 info finding(s) across 15 file(s)
astral-sh/uv F 48/100 workflow hygiene (−17.8): 65 warning(s), 74 info finding(s) across 47 file(s)
home-assistant/core F 48/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 45 warning(s), 33 info finding(s) across 16 file(s)
prometheus/prometheus F 40/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 44 warning(s), 4 info finding(s) across 15 file(s)
vitejs/vite F 27/100 workflow hygiene (−21.1): 28 warning(s), 6 info finding(s) across 14 file(s)
denoland/deno F 24/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 37 warning(s), 54 info finding(s) across 11 file(s)

This is not a quality ranking of these projects. It grades one narrow thing: how their GitHub Actions setup scores on hygiene, reliability, and efficiency signals, formula here. A few honest caveats:

Want the itemized deductions behind any grade? gha-doctor --repo owner/repo --json | jq .score — and see the badge docs to put your own repo’s grade in its README.