Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 23:32 UTC

ArchiveBox / abxpkg

📦 Modern strongly typed Python library for managing system dependencies with package managers like apt, brew, pip, npm, etc.

PythonMIT★ 28 stars⑂ 1 forksince May 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#apt#brew#dependencies#dependencies-checking#dependency-manager#django#npm#package-managers#packages#pip#pydantic#python#dpkg#js#docker#pnpm#uv#package-manager#gem#nix

ArchiveBox/abxpkg holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (91/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ArchiveBoxOrganization
496 followers23 public repossince Nov 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIabxpkg1.11.246-2680 days agoansibleaptbrewcargodependenciesdevopsdockergemnixpackagemanagerpippydanticpyinfrasystem

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 707 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_year707
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 62 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count62
latest_release_tagv1.11.246
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.7
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?

36Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

23At Risk
How it's scored
23.2/60Stars — 28 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars28
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

28At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.858

Issue & PR responsiveness

49Weak
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
22.1/30PR acceptance — 25/34 decided PRs merged
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_prs25
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

88Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
19.4/25Owner reach — 496 followers of ArchiveBox
21.3/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers496
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginArchiveBox
public_repos23
account_age_days2,063
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 — 268 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesabxpkg
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://abxpkg.archivebox.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapt, brew, dependencies, dependencies-checking, dependency-manager, django, npm, package-managers, packages, pip, pydantic, python, dpkg, js, docker, pnpm, uv, package-manager, gem, nix
has_wikino
homepagehttp://abxpkg.archivebox.io
docs_sitehttp://abxpkg.archivebox.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate
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
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — 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_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
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_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,411
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
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

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.1/55Manageable file sizes — 3/85 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes144,896
source_files_sampled85
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

28GitHub stars
4contributors
707commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
62releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 23:32 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
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpip>=26.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions>=4.15.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs>=4.9.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.12.5pyproject.toml
PyPIrich-click>=1.9.7pyproject.toml
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpip—direct
PyPIplatformdirs—direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIrich-click—direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPIabxbus—indirect
PyPIansible—indirect
PyPIansible-core—indirect
PyPIansible-runner—indirect
PyPIdjango—indirect
PyPIdjango-admin-data-views—indirect
PyPIdjango-jsonform—indirect
PyPIdjango-pydantic-field—indirect
PyPIdjango-stubs—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIprek—indirect
PyPIpyinfra—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpytest-codeblocks—indirect
PyPIpytest-github-actions-annotate-failures—indirect
PyPIrich—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIty—indirect
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 ArchiveBox/abxpkg. Read them side by side →

99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99wagtail/wagtailA Django content management system focused on flexibility and user experienceExceptional99langchain-ai/langgraphBuild resilient agents.Exceptional99litestar-org/litestarLight, flexible and extensible ASGI framework | Built to scaleExceptional99pydantic/logfireAI observability platform for production LLM and agent systems.Exceptional99aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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