reconmap
open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on reconmap's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Open source vulnerability assessment and penetration testing platform for planning, executing, and reporting on security assessments.
Summary
Reconmap is an open-source pentest management platform that supports security teams through planning, execution, and reporting for penetration testing engagements. It can be run locally via Docker compose or used as a hosted SaaSSaaSSoftware delivered over the internet and run on the provider's infrastructure, so the buyer pays a subscription instead of installing or operating anything locally. offering through the vendor's own service, giving teams a choice between self-hosting and letting the developers manage infrastructure. It targets penetration testers, InfoSec teams, and MSSPs who need to coordinate work across an engagement rather than run isolated scans, letting them execute or schedule commands, capture output automatically, and generate reports in Word, Markdown, or HTML. It also exposes Model Context ProtocolModel Context ProtocolModel Context Protocol, a standard for connecting AI applications to external tools and data sources. A compatible server exposes capabilities an assistant can use through a common interface. support for connecting to AI assistants and LLMsLLMsA large language model, a neural network trained on large amounts of text to recognize patterns and generate language. Applications use it for tasks such as answering, summarizing and writing code.. It sits in the pentest and vulnerability-management space alongside other engagement-tracking platforms, and with 8 releases in the window tracked, it shows active, ongoing development.
Open source vulnerability assessment and penetration testing platform for planning, executing, and reporting on security assessments.
How reconmap helps
Which commands were run against this target, and what did each one return?
every command executed or scheduled during the engagement has its output captured and stored automatically, tied back to the finding it produced
Which vulnerabilities have my team found so far on this engagement, and who found them?
tracked findings are linked to the commands and output that produced them, so the state of the assessment is visible across everyone working the engagement rather than sitting in one tester's terminal
How do I get a client-ready report out of this engagement without writing it from scratch?
the captured commands, output and findings are pulled into a generated report in Word, Markdown or HTML
Can my AI assistant pull live findings and context from this engagement instead of me copying them over?
the Model Context Protocol support exposes the engagement's data to a connected assistant or LLM directly
Where do I run commands for a client who doesn't want their data leaving my own infrastructure?
the same platform runs self-hosted through Docker compose, or is handed to the vendor's hosted SaaS, so the choice of where the data lives is separate from how the engagement is run
Languages
Command line
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for reconmap, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail reconmap puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
Nothing shipped since we started watching. Releases and docs updates land here as they happen.
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in reconmap/reconmap, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 3 +2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 33% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 35 days first maintainer reply 35 days
- Open backlog 0 of 139 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 2
- Commits / month 17
- Stars 981
- features 17%
- other 83%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →