Registry listing counts are widely quoted as a measure of ecosystem health. They measure publishing, not use. Here is the difference, in one corpus.
n = 12,742 · measured 2026-09-03 · recomputed on every page load| Observation | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reports zero installs | 6,678 | 52.4% |
| Reports fewer than five installs | 10,424 | 81.8% |
| Reports 100 or more installs | 249 | 2% |
| Highest install count observed | 2,499 | — |
| Median install count | 0 | — |
| Share of all installs held by the top 10% | 86.2% | — |
It says reported adoption is extremely concentrated: a median listing reports 0 installs while the top tenth accounts for 86.2% of the total. It does not say the long tail is low quality, unmaintained or abandoned. New, niche, private-use and personal skills all legitimately report low counts, and a count of zero may simply mean the registry does not track installs for that listing.
It is the reason we do not attempt to watch everything. Monitoring effort is directed at what people actually install, because watching a listing nobody uses protects nobody.
Full method and known limitations: methodology. Believe a specific record is wrong? Request a correction.