Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-14 18:15 UTC

ANCPLabOldenburg / ancp-bids

A Python package to read/write/query/validate BIDS datasets.

PythonMIT★ 12 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Aug 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

ANCPLabOldenburg/ancp-bids holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Applied Neurocognitive Psychology Lab University OldenburgOrganization
11 followers23 public repossince Mar 2021

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIancpbids0.4.04,416390 days agobidsneuroimagingdataset

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

54Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 37 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~92.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count37
latest_release_tag0.4.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases92.4
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

27At Risk
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars12
watchers3
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_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

61Moderate
How it's scored
48.6/80Monthly downloads — 4,416 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesancpbids
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,416
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?

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.851

Issue & PR responsiveness

64Moderate
How it's scored
33.9/42Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
22.1/30PR acceptance — 14/19 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs14
open_issues16
closed_issues67
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.807
closed_unmerged_prs5
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.

Ownership & stewardship

73Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
7.8/25Owner reach — 11 followers of ANCPLabOldenburg
20.9/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginANCPLabOldenburg
public_repos23
account_age_days1,978
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 39 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesancpbids
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

58Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://ancpbids.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://ancpbids.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://ancpbids.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk
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
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 32 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories66
affected_packages12
assessed_packages156
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 3, moderate 7, low 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 156 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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

16Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history — 30 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.3
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — ancpbids/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsancpbids/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

81Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (ancpbids/py.typed)
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 1/51 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes78,254
source_files_sampled51
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

12GitHub stars
11contributors
11commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
37releases
1bus factor
16open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:ancpbids@0.4.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks
24Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

0246810121212021-092023-092025-08
Major 0Minor 3Patch 21

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-14 18:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities32 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 156

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 156 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.10.7indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.4indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.1indirect
PyPIcuda-bindings13.3.1indirect
PyPIcuda-pathfinder1.6.0indirect
PyPIcuda-toolkit13.0.3.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.20.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.19.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.3indirect
PyPIflake85.0.4indirect
PyPIflake87.1.2indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2025.10.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2025.3.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2026.7.0indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize1.5.0indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImpmath1.3.0indirect
PyPInetworkx3.1indirect
PyPInetworkx3.2.1indirect
PyPInetworkx3.4.2indirect
PyPInetworkx3.6.1indirect
PyPInumpy1.24.4indirect
PyPInumpy2.0.2indirect
PyPInumpy2.2.6indirect
PyPInumpy2.4.6indirect
PyPInumpy2.5.2indirect
PyPInvidia-cublas13.1.1.3indirect
PyPInvidia-cublas-cu1212.4.5.8indirect
PyPInvidia-cublas-cu1212.8.4.1indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-cupti13.0.85indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-cupti-cu1212.4.127indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-cupti-cu1212.8.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-nvrtc13.0.88indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-nvrtc-cu1212.4.127indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-nvrtc-cu1212.8.93indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-runtime13.0.96indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-runtime-cu1212.4.127indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-runtime-cu1212.8.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cudnn-cu129.1.0.70indirect
PyPInvidia-cudnn-cu129.10.2.21indirect
PyPInvidia-cudnn-cu139.20.0.48indirect
PyPInvidia-cufft12.0.0.61indirect
PyPInvidia-cufft-cu1211.2.1.3indirect
PyPInvidia-cufft-cu1211.3.3.83indirect
PyPInvidia-cufile1.15.1.6indirect
PyPInvidia-cufile-cu121.13.1.3indirect
PyPInvidia-curand10.4.0.35indirect
PyPInvidia-curand-cu1210.3.5.147indirect
PyPInvidia-curand-cu1210.3.9.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cusolver12.0.4.66indirect
PyPInvidia-cusolver-cu1211.6.1.9indirect
PyPInvidia-cusolver-cu1211.7.3.90indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparse12.6.3.3indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparse-cu1212.3.1.170indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparse-cu1212.5.8.93indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparselt-cu120.7.1indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparselt-cu130.8.1indirect
PyPInvidia-nccl-cu122.21.5indirect
PyPInvidia-nccl-cu122.27.3indirect
PyPInvidia-nccl-cu132.29.7indirect
PyPInvidia-nvjitlink13.3.33indirect
PyPInvidia-nvjitlink-cu1212.4.127indirect
PyPInvidia-nvjitlink-cu1212.8.93indirect
PyPInvidia-nvshmem-cu133.4.5indirect
PyPInvidia-nvtx13.0.85indirect
PyPInvidia-nvtx-cu1212.4.127indirect
PyPInvidia-nvtx-cu1212.8.90indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpandas2.0.3indirect
PyPIpandas2.3.3indirect
PyPIpandas3.0.5indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpockets0.9.1indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.12.1indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.9.1indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.5.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.2.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.5indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytz2026.3.post1indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.4indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1indirect
PyPIsetuptools84.0.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx7.1.2indirect
PyPIsphinx7.4.7indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-inline-tabs2025.12.21.14indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-napoleon0.7indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsympy1.12.1indirect
PyPIsympy1.14.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItorch2.13.0indirect
PyPItorch2.5.1indirect
PyPItorch2.8.0indirect
PyPItriton3.1.0indirect
PyPItriton3.4.0indirect
PyPItriton3.7.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.1indirect
Dependency advisories 12

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 156 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 12 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
torch2.5.1indirectcritical222.13.0
torch2.8.0indirecthigh82.13.0
urllib32.2.3indirecthigh122.7.0
urllib32.6.3indirecthigh42.7.0
filelock3.16.1indirectmoderate43.20.3
filelock3.19.1indirectmoderate43.20.3
pytest8.3.5indirectmoderate29.0.3
pytest8.4.2indirectmoderate29.0.3
requests2.32.4indirectmoderate22.33.0
requests2.32.5indirectmoderate22.33.0
setuptools82.0.1indirectmoderate283.0.0
pygments2.19.2indirectlow22.20.0

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 ANCPLabOldenburg/ancp-bids. Read them side by side →

71nemarOrg/nemar-cliCLI for NEMAR dataset managementGood99mne-tools/mne-pythonMNE: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and Electroencephalography (EEG) in PythonExceptional96Slicer/SlicerMulti-platform, free open source software for visualization and image computing.Exceptional94joke2k/fakerFaker is a Python package that generates fake data for you.Exceptional94nipy/nibabelPython package to access a cacophony of neuro-imaging file formatsExceptional92braindecode/braindecodeDeep learning software to decode EEG, ECG or MEG signalsExcellent

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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