Vendor CLIs in the Arch User Repository
Distribution market (vendors' own command-line tools packaged for arch linux; providers ranked). The Kin Score Market layer reads each provider in its market: who it integrates with, how deep those integrations go, and where the market publishes its own structure. Methodology.
Where this market publishes its structure
- AUR full metadata dump (aur.archlinux.org/packages-meta-ext-v1.json.gz) machine-readable, 122,754 packages; 7,478 described as a CLI; 6,710 no catalog holder for the upstream host / org; 69 upstream on a package-registry page (held); 351 passed the upstream leg
- AUR .SRCINFO (aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/.SRCINFO?h=
) machine-readable, 351 fetched, 0 unreadable; 236 linked / 148 providers; 6,314 (provider, package) pairs held (2,875 shared GitHub org, 2,576 name check, 400 no own domain, 292 artifact not the vendor's, 12 hand review) - AUR RPC v5 (aur.archlinux.org/rpc/v5/info, /search) machine-readable, same fields as the dump; used for the 15-link spot check only
- AUR /cgit/aur.git/plain and /snapshot not machine-readable: disallowed by robots.txt; not read
- AUR maintainer accounts (/account/*) not machine-readable: disallowed by robots.txt and login-only; maintainer identity is never a publisher leg
Own = declares at least one integration itself; covered = visible only because an aggregator, standards body, regulator or partner contract names it; distribution-only = listed only on cloud marketplaces it sells through, a channel reported beside, never counted as its own declared integrations; undeclared = nothing we can read, so no number; declares_compatibility = providers with a `compatible` shape vote, report only (kin, 2026-10-13): never counted as own, never in depth or position.
Taxonomy how this market maps onto apis.io
Derived 2026-10-23 from the 16 providers in this market we could resolve in the catalog. The percentage is the share of those providers carrying each one; it describes the market, not the tag or industry. Tag groups have no page of their own yet, so they are listed unlinked.
| Tags | Open Source 44%, Cloud 31%, Developer Tools 25% |
|---|---|
| Tag groups | Infrastructure 31%, Developer Tools 25% |
| Industries | Developer Tools & DevOps 56%, Artificial Intelligence 25% |
| Areas | Containers 19%, Serverless 12% |
| Capabilities | BC-620 31%, BC-4210 25% |
share of resolved cohort carrying it; tags >=0.20 & >=3 members (max 12, junk dropped), tag_groups >=0.20 (cooccurrence, non-cross-cutting; max 8), industries >=0.20 (max 6), areas >=0.10 (max 6; areas are keyword-matched and sparse), capabilities L1 >=0.20 (max 8); derive-market-taxonomy.py
Leaders by position (provisional)
Provisional: grouped by position, depth compared within a position only. Distribution (cloud marketplaces) and iPaaS bridges are counted beside position, never inside it. Unknown-builder listings are left out of position shares and counted here.
undeclared 16 · declares nothing we can read: no number
| Provider | Depth | Integrations | In / out | Unknown builder | Distribution | iPaaS bridge | Mix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arduino | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Bazel | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Bitwarden | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Docker | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Entire | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Firecrawl | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Frappe | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| IPinfo | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| LocalStack | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Moonshot AI | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| OVH Cloud | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Rancher | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Red Hat OpenShift | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Supabase | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Tenstorrent | undeclared | - | - | - | - | - |
Generated 2026-10-23 from API Evangelist's own files; nothing on this page is a model's judgement. Provisional and unweighted; not part of the Kin Score composite or agent readiness. Read the Market layer methodology. Disagree with an edge? Every edge cites its evidence and can be corrected through the normal correction path.