Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 20:11 UTC

115dkk / Impulcifer-pip313

Measurement and processing of binaural impulse responses for personalized surround virtualization on headphones.

Rust · PythonMIT★ 11 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2025forkView on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolDesktop applicationLibraryhow this is determined

115dkk/Impulcifer-pip313 holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (20/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

65
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

115dkkPersonal account
1 follower38 public repossince Nov 2017

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIimpulcifer-py3133.5.12,507523 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 675 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year675
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year25

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.8 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases1.8

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

20At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars — 11 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars11
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.565
How it's scored
39.6/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance — 191/197 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs191
open_issues3
closed_issues49
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d28
prs_decided_30d30
issue_closed_ratio0.942
closed_unmerged_prs6
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of 115dkk
23.6/25Track record — 38 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_login115dkk
public_repos38
account_age_days3,271
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 52 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesimpulcifer-py313
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.flake8])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaudio, brir, dsp, pypi-package, rust, tauri
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 52 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.1

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

86Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes54,906
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, apps/impulcifer-app/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-analysis/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.flake8])
11/11Static type checking — apps/impulcifer-app/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 81 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsapps/impulcifer-app/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.81
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, apps/impulcifer-app/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-analysis/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-audio-io/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-cli/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-dsp/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-io/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-jobs/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-plots/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-policy/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-python/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-service/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-sys-win/Cargo.toml, crates/impulcifer-types/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 7/444 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes118,408
source_files_sampled444
oversized_source_files7
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

11GitHub stars
4contributors
675commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
3open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-10-21 20:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities52 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImatplotlib>=3.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.26.0pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsoundfile>=0.12.1pyproject.toml
PyPIsounddevice>=0.4.7pyproject.toml
PyPInnresample>=0.2.4pyproject.toml
PyPItabulate>=0.9.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow>=10.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIseaborn—pyproject.toml
PyPIbokeh>=3.0.0,<3.10pyproject.toml
PyPIcustomtkinter>=5.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging>=23.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.