Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 05:29 UTC

AbstractEndeavors / abstract_hugpy_dev

PythonCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolNetwork servicehow this is determined

AbstractEndeavors/abstract_hugpy_dev holds a health index of 30 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (49/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (20/100). It was last updated 31 days ago.

30
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

30
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 36 is calibrated to 30 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Abstract EndeavorsOrganization
3 followers63 public repossince Apr 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIabstract_hugpy_dev0.1.2665,61825627 days agollmllama.cpptransformersself-hostedopenai-compatible

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

31At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

51Moderate
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 31 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 317 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_year317
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push31
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

21At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

49Weak · 23% of overall

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_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
4.3/25Owner reach — 3 followers of AbstractEndeavors
21.9/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers3
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginAbstractEndeavors
public_repos63
account_age_days1,633

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 27 days ago
20/20Version history — 256 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesabstract_hugpy_dev
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish27

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

36Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

45Weak
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://hugpy.ai
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://hugpy.ai
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At 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
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
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — 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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

77Good
How it's scored
17.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: pypdf2 3.0.1 (moderate 6.2)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
34.6/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,207 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages62
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the pypi:abstract_hugpy_dev@0.1.266 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 62 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.

20At Risk · 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 — 0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

22At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.1/55Manageable file sizes — 38/712 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes1,302,298
source_files_sampled712
oversized_source_files38

Key facts

0GitHub stars
-contributors
317commits, last 12 months
31days since last push
0releases
-bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Contributor list unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 05:29 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
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense 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
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIabstract-search—pyproject.toml
PyPIflask—pyproject.toml
PyPIgunicorn—pyproject.toml
PyPIwaitress—pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx—pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp—pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests—pyproject.toml
PyPIabstract_essentials—pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs—pyproject.toml
PyPIhuggingface_hub>=0.26pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4—pyproject.toml
PyPIPyPDF2—pyproject.toml
PyPIpdfplumber—pyproject.toml
PyPIabstract_apis—pyproject.toml
PyPIabstract_flask—pyproject.toml
PyPIabstract_queries—pyproject.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

Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:abstract_hugpy_dev@0.1.266 pulls in 62 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pypdf23.0.1directmoderate23.9.0

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 AbstractEndeavors/abstract_hugpy_dev. Read them side by side →

98Agenta-AI/agentaAgenta is a workspace where you and your team build agents and automations.Exceptional98openvinotoolkit/nncfNeural Network Compression Framework for enhanced OpenVINO™ inferenceExceptional98huggingface/peft🤗 PEFT: State-of-the-art Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning.Exceptional97xorbitsai/inferenceSwap GPT for any LLM by changing a single line of code. Xinference lets you run open-source, speech, and multimodal models on cloud, on-prem, or your laptop — all through one unified, production-ready inference API.Exceptional96MakazhanAlpamys/SoupFine-tune LLMs from one YAML. Layer streaming trains an 8B model on a 4 GB laptop GPU.Exceptional96onyx-dot-app/onyxOpen Source AI Platform - AI Chat with advanced features that works with every LLMExceptional

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.