Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 21:22 UTC

BDraves / pyalsoft

Typed Python audio for playback, capture, spatial sound, effects, and OpenAL Soft bindings—with native runtimes bundled in wheels.

PythonMIT★ 1 star⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined
#audio#efx#game-audio#hrtf#openal#openal-soft#python#python-bindings#spatial-audio

BDraves/pyalsoft holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (28/100). It was last updated 54 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Brennan DravesPersonal account
0 followers5 public repossince Feb 2020

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 publishTags
PyPIpyalsoft1.8.03222156 days ago3d-audioaudiobindingsctypesefxgame-audiohrtfopenalopenal-softsoundspatial-audio

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

39Weak
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 54 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 130 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year130
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push54
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 56 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv1.8.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release56
mean_days_between_releases1.1

Community & Adoption

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

28At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars1
watchers0
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_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

42Weak
How it's scored
33.5/80Monthly downloads — 322 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespyalsoft
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads322
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?

46Weak · 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

57Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
25.7/30PR acceptance — 24/28 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs24
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

35Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of BDraves
17.7/25Track record — 5 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginBDraves
public_repos5
account_age_days2,427
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 56 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyalsoft
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish56

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://bdraves.github.io/pyalsoft/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaudio, efx, game-audio, hrtf, openal, openal-soft, python, python-bindings, spatial-audio
has_wikino
homepagehttps://bdraves.github.io/pyalsoft/
docs_sitehttps://bdraves.github.io/pyalsoft/
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
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 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 0/8 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no data
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Pinned-Dependencies, SAST, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories6
affected_packages1
assessed_packages44
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 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 44 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 91 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.91
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

60Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/pyalsoft/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 — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/pyalsoft/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

79Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/pyalsoft/py.typed)
52.4/55Manageable file sizes — 6/129 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes297,819
source_files_sampled129
oversized_source_files6

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

1GitHub stars
1contributors
130commits, last 12 months
54days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

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 · 2026-10-19 21:21 UTC

8Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 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 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowinternal error: internal error: invalid GitHub workflow: :38:2: could not parse as YAML: could not find expected ':' [syntax-check]
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesinternal error: internal error: invalid GitHub workflow: :38:2: could not parse as YAML: could not find expected ':' [syntax-check]
n/aSASTinternal error: internal error: invalid GitHub workflow: :38:2: could not parse as YAML: could not find expected ':' [syntax-check]
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-Permissionsinternal error: internal error: invalid GitHub workflow: :38:2: could not parse as YAML: could not find expected ':' [syntax-check]
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 44

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 44 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.4indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.2indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.6indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpyalsoft1.8.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIruff0.16.1indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 44 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
urllib32.7.0indirecthigh62.8.0

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 BDraves/pyalsoft. Read them side by side →

98pybind/pybind11Seamless operability between C++11 and PythonExceptional100huggingface/transformers🤗 Transformers: the model-definition framework for state-of-the-art machine learning models in text, vision, audio, and multimodal models, for both inference and training. Exceptional98metabrainz/picardPicard is a cross-platform music tagger powered by the MusicBrainz databaseExceptional100PrefectHQ/prefectPrefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python.Exceptional100aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional100streamlit/streamlitStreamlit — A faster way to build and share data apps.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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