An engineering-health report for your codebase you can attach to the board deck — in under an hour.
RepoHealth reads your repository's own history and produces a dated, third-party-legible assessment: activity, author concentration and bus factor, churn hotspots, test and CI signal, dependency and docs freshness — every number with an inline note on exactly how it was computed.
See a real report
Read the full sample →Generated for the pallets/flask open-source project — a real run of the same pipeline you're buying, framed for acquisition or investment diligence.
The headline finding
Bus factor 1
on the core module — 71% of all window commits from one author
flask is a healthy, actively maintained codebase with one material structural risk: continuity.
Delivery & test signal
58%
of source-touching commits also touch tests
487 commits across 22 of 24 months; CI configured (tests.yaml, release.yaml).
Every number auditable
How we computed this
For each directory, bus factor = the smallest number of authors who together account for ≥50% of commits touching that directory in the window. Overall = the median across directories that received ≥10 commits. Dominant-author share = the largest single author's share of that directory's commits.
What's in the report
Seven metric areas, computed from the repository's own git history and manifests. Every number shows how we computed it — inline, next to the figure.
Commit & author activity
How much is changing, how often, and by whom — commit cadence over the last 24 months and the shape of the contributor base.
Author concentration & bus factor
Who the codebase depends on: top-author commit share overall, and per-directory bus factor so you see exactly which modules live in one person's head.
Churn hotspots
The files that change the most — where delivery pressure and defect risk actually concentrate, named by path.
Test signal
Whether tests show up in the history: the ratio of test-touching to source-touching commits, and how often a source change ships with a test change.
CI presence
Whether continuous integration is configured at the repo root, and which workflows exist.
Dependency freshness
How many runtime dependencies are declared, how many are pinned with upper bounds, and how many are a major version behind.
Docs freshness
When the README and docs were last touched, and whether a contributing guide exists — the surfaces a new engineer (or acquirer) reads first.
Who it's for
Board review
Walk in with a dated, third-party-legible picture of engineering health: activity, continuity risk, and delivery discipline, framed for a non-engineering reader and ready to attach to the deck.
Acquirer diligence
A structured read on the codebase you're evaluating — concentration risk, maintenance signals, and the specific follow-ups worth putting to the sellers, computed from the repo's own history.
Inherited codebase
You've just taken over a repo you didn't write. Get a map of where the risk sits — which modules churn, which have one maintainer, what the docs and tests actually look like — before you start changing things.
Pricing
One assessment
$249
One engineering-health report: executive summary, all seven metric areas with per-number computation notes, and follow-ups framed for your situation. Hosted on your own link, with a PDF, emailed to you. Typically ready within an hour. No subscription.
Assess your codebase — $249Monitoring
$99/month
Monthly re-runs on the same repo with trend deltas on every metric — activity, concentration, churn, freshness — so your next review shows movement, not just a snapshot. Pause or cancel any time.
Start with an assessment →FAQ
What exactly is in the report?
An executive summary; commit and author activity over the last 24 months; author concentration with per-directory bus factor; churn hotspots by file; test-signal ratios; CI presence; dependency freshness; docs freshness; and a short list of follow-up questions framed for your situation (board, diligence, or inheritance). Every number has an inline note describing exactly how it was computed from the repository's own history.
How do you access the code?
Either connect a GitHub repository with read-only access, or upload a repo archive (.zip or .tar.gz including git history). Read-only is the entire access scope — the report never writes to your repository.
How long does it take?
Reports are typically ready within an hour of checkout. You get a hosted report page on your own link, a PDF version, and an email with both.
Is this a code review or a security audit?
No. It's an engineering-health assessment: activity, continuity risk, maintenance and delivery discipline. It does not review code correctness line-by-line, find vulnerabilities, or replace a security audit — and where a finding needs a human expert, the report says so in the follow-ups.
What does monitoring add?
The $99/month plan re-runs the assessment monthly on the same repo and shows you the trend: deltas on activity, concentration, churn, and freshness, so a board review next quarter shows movement, not just a snapshot. Pause or cancel any time.
What is your refund policy?
If we can't produce a report from the repository you provided — unreadable archive, empty history, pipeline failure — the charge is reversed automatically and you'll get an email; no action needed. If our records show you never opened your delivered report, we refund on request within 30 days. See our Terms for details, or email repohealth@forage.bot.
Building on top of RepoHealth? There's an API — see the docs.