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: 2026-07-30 · gha-doctor 0.15.0 · last 100 completed runs per repo.

Repo Grade Score Biggest deduction
pytorch/pytorch B 88/100 workflow hygiene (−7): 37 warning(s), 21 info finding(s) across 60 file(s)
django/django B 86/100 success rate (−6.9): 89% of 45 decisive runs succeeded (skipped/cancelled not counted)
python/cpython B 84/100 workflow hygiene (−10.5): 20 warning(s), 12 info finding(s) across 22 file(s)
apache/airflow C 76/100 workflow hygiene (−10.1): 42 warning(s), 22 info finding(s) across 47 file(s)
cli/cli C 70/100 workflow hygiene (−25.2): 30 warning(s), 11 info finding(s) across 13 file(s)
angular/angular D 69/100 workflow hygiene (−26.3): 34 warning(s), 1 info finding(s) across 13 file(s)
vuejs/core D 68/100 workflow hygiene (−16.9): 14 warning(s), 5 info finding(s) across 9 file(s)
grafana/grafana D 63/100 workflow hygiene (−22.9): 131 warning(s), 26 info finding(s) across 60 file(s)
sveltejs/svelte D 63/100 success rate (−25): 59% of 22 decisive runs succeeded (skipped/cancelled not counted)
rust-lang/rust D 62/100 workflow hygiene (−18.8): 7 warning(s), 2 info finding(s) across 4 file(s)
pandas-dev/pandas D 61/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 35 warning(s), 17 info finding(s) across 12 file(s)
astral-sh/uv F 59/100 workflow hygiene (−21.4): 64 warning(s), 52 info finding(s) across 36 file(s)
microsoft/typescript F 59/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 55 warning(s), 14 info finding(s) across 17 file(s)
nodejs/node F 59/100 workflow hygiene (−24.8): 99 warning(s), 21 info finding(s) across 42 file(s)
vercel/next.js F 58/100 workflow hygiene (−26.2): 86 warning(s), 33 info finding(s) across 36 file(s)
huggingface/transformers F 56/100 workflow hygiene (−19.3): 102 warning(s), 32 info finding(s) across 57 file(s)
facebook/react F 55/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 104 warning(s), 48 info finding(s) across 22 file(s)
prometheus/prometheus F 55/100 workflow hygiene (−28.3): 42 warning(s), 2 info finding(s) across 15 file(s)
denoland/deno F 50/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 35 warning(s), 53 info finding(s) across 11 file(s)
home-assistant/core F 49/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 47 warning(s), 29 info finding(s) across 13 file(s)
microsoft/vscode F 48/100 workflow hygiene (−30): 51 warning(s), 16 info finding(s) across 16 file(s)
pola-rs/polars F 45/100 workflow hygiene (−27.3): 52 warning(s), 10 info finding(s) across 20 file(s)
vitejs/vite F 40/100 workflow hygiene (−17.3): 20 warning(s), 3 info finding(s) across 12 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.