GRASP.
Grasp · Comprehension Index Scan Report

Who still understands crewAIInc/crewAI?

Computed from git metadata only; no source code contents were read.
touch-weighted · full history, 3-year analysis window · last commit 56d ago · scores are comparable only against same-mode scans

Grasp Score
73
touch-weighted living knowledge across the repo
Active humans
21 / 350
contributors active in last 90 days vs. all-time
AI-attributed minimum
≥ 6.2%
hard evidence only. Just 19% of commits here carry any attribution signal, so the real share is higher
Inactive share
25.6%
work by authors with no commit in the window; silence, not proof of departure
Composition
15/6/78/1%
source / tests / docs / config share of scored work
Living, source only
63%
the headline recomputed over hand-written source alone
Score stability
volatile
90-day-cliff variant reads 26%–93% across 60/90/180-day activity windows; read the width before the middle value
Squash-merged history: 57% of the commits analysed here collapsed a whole pull request into one commit by one author. Squashing credits a single person for everyone's work and can strip the co-author trailers that name the rest (measured across heavy squashers, roughly a quarter to a third of squash commits still carry them, and those are credited), so for this repository the concentration figures are an upper bound, the bus factors are a lower bound, and the AI-attribution minimum is lower than it would be with the same work merged conventionally. That information is destroyed at merge time and cannot be recovered from the repository, so it is reported rather than corrected. Comparisons against a project that does not squash are comparisons across two different record-keeping systems.

Dark-code ranking

Modules ranked by comprehension risk: the unknown share, amplified by ongoing change and thin ownership. The green meter is living knowledge.

ModuleRiskLiving knowledgeAI-attr. InactiveBusHeat/180d
docs/imagesLOW 49
45%
5%69%244
docsLOW 47
53%
3%48%187
docs/conceptsLOW 47
38%
5%68%10
docs/enLOW 44
56%
2%67%1203
docs/koLOW 44
56%
2%68%1176
docs/pt-BRLOW 44
56%
2%66%1177
docs/toolsLOW 42
44%
0%62%10
.githubLOW 40
60%
5%61%184
docs/guidesLOW 40
47%
7%58%10
docs/how-toLOW 39
48%
1%48%10
docs/enterpriseLOW 38
50%
0%58%10
(root)LOW 36
64%
4%36%1160
docs/arLOW 35
65%
3%79%0394
libLOW 31
66%
8%65%24225
docs/core-conceptsLOW 31
58%
0%30%10
docs/v1.15.3LOW 29
71%
0%98%01107
docs/v1.15.4LOW 29
71%
0%98%01111
docs/v1.15.5LOW 29
71%
0%98%01111
srcLOW 29
57%
3%51%20
docs/v1.15.16LOW 23
77%
0%0%1766

One commit touched 42% of every file changed in this window. Wide, shallow commits, a formatter run or a license-header pass, add weight for their author across the whole surface while changing little. Worth looking at what that commit was before crediting the score to its author.

One commit accounts for 32% of the analysed lines. In a repository this size a single large change can move the score on its own, and git cannot tell a thoughtfully written thousand-line change from a thousand lines a formatter rewrote. Worth looking at what that commit actually was before reading much into the number; the touch-weighted view, which counts each file-touching commit once, is the cross-check.

Public-repo caveat: "departed" includes drive-by contributors, overstating attrition relative to a company repo with a real roster. Engagement is a proxy for comprehension. Treat it as a potential indicator rather than a diagnosis.