Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 20:44 UTC

4thel00z / dizzle

Rust-powered functional toolkit for Python: toolz-compatible API, Option/Result types, and a fluent Iter — benchmarked faster than cytoolz

Rust · PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#cytoolz#functional-programming#iterators#maturin#performance#pyo3#python#rust#toolz

4thel00z/dizzle holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (95/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

4thel00zPersonal account
93 followers413 public repossince Sep 2016

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
PyPIdizzle0.2.13031738 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

63Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume — 50 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year50
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

64Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 4 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~579.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv0.4.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases579.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
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_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

25At Risk
How it's scored
19.9/80Monthly downloads — 30 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdizzle
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads30
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

31At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.2/25Owner reach — 93 followers of 4thel00z
25/25Track record — 413 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers93
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_login4thel00z
public_repos413
account_age_days3,604
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

61Moderate
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,738 days ago
12/20Version history — 3 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdizzle
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,738

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

95Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/dizzle/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscytoolz, functional-programming, iterators, maturin, performance, pyo3, python, rust, toolz
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/dizzle/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/dizzle/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

76Good
How it's scored
16.5/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: python-dotenv 0.19.2 (moderate 6.6)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
34.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 91 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages21
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the pypi:dizzle@0.2.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 21 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — python/dizzle/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspython/dizzle/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes38,153
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
50commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch crates package 'dizzle' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 20:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iopyo30.29.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iopyo30.29.0direct
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.13.1indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.29.0indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.46indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.118indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.5indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcytoolz1.1.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.5indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.156.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImaturin1.14.1indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIpy-cpuinfo9.0.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-benchmark5.2.3indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.4.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIruff0.15.20indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItoolz1.1.0indirect
PyPIty0.0.56indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.5.1indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:dizzle@0.2.1 pulls in 21 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
python-dotenv0.19.2directmoderate21.2.2

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with 4thel00z/dizzle. Read them side by side →

98valkey-io/valkey-glideAn open source Valkey client library that supports Valkey, and Redis open source 6.2, 7.0 and 7.2. Valkey GLIDE is designed for reliability, optimized performance, and high-availability, for Valkey and Redis OSS based applications. GLIDE is a multi language client library, written in Rust with programming language bindings, such as Java and PythonExceptional97PyO3/pyo3Rust bindings for the Python interpreterExceptional99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional99apache/datafusionApache DataFusion SQL Query EngineExceptional99Qiskit/qiskitQiskit is an open-source SDK for working with quantum computers at the level of extended quantum circuits, operators, and primitives.Exceptional99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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