Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 17:42 UTC

Baekalfen / PyBoy

Game Boy emulator written in Python

Python · CythonCustom license★ 5,198 stars⑂ 538 forkssince May 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Baekalfen/PyBoy holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mads YnddalPersonal account
181 followers57 public repossince Sep 2013

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
PyPIpyboy2.7.027,56654236 days agogameboygame-boyemulatorcythonpypy

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
16.6/36Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 123 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year123
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year24
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 44 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 135 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~59.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count44
latest_release_tagv2.7.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release135
mean_days_between_releases59.8
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?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 5,198 stars
22.8/25Forks — 538 forks
10.4/15Watchers — 75 watchers
Inputs used
forks538
stars5,198
watchers75
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
59.2/80Monthly downloads — 27,566 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespyboy
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads27,566
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 36 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled36
top_contributor_share0.864
How it's scored
39.7/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
23.7/30PR acceptance — 204/258 decided PRs merged
3.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs204
open_issues9
closed_issues157
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d12
issue_closed_ratio0.946
closed_unmerged_prs54
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.2/25Owner reach — 181 followers of Baekalfen
24.8/25Track record — 57 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers181
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginBaekalfen
public_repos57
account_age_days4,741
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 236 days ago
20/20Version history — 54 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyboy
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish236

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.pyboy.dk/index.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgameboy, emulator, pypy, python, gameboy-emulator, gameboy-emulator-library, cython
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.pyboy.dk/index.html
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
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
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 3 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 — 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 — 28 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:pyboy@2.7.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4.8/40Legible commit history — 9 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.09
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,389
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, extras/bootrom/Makefile, extras/default_rom/Makefile, extras/font/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, extras/bootrom/Makefile, extras/default_rom/Makefile, extras/font/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 2/118 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes148,574
source_files_sampled118
oversized_source_files2
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

5,198GitHub stars
36contributors
123commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
44releases
1bus factor
9open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 538 ⇿
0Stars
538Forks
44Releases

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.

0100200300400500600531732017-042021-122026-09
Major 1Minor 9Patch 34

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 17:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
6CI-Tests3 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 1/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 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
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
0Vulnerabilities28 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy—pyproject.toml
PyPIpysdl2—pyproject.toml
PyPIpysdl2-dll—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIpysdl2—direct
PyPIpysdl2-dll—direct
PyPIcryptography—indirect
PyPIcython—indirect
PyPIfilelock—indirect
PyPIgitpython—indirect
PyPIglfw—indirect
PyPImarkdown—indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpyopenal—indirect
PyPIpyopengl—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-benchmark—indirect
PyPIpytest-lazy-fixtures—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pyboy@2.7.0 pulls in 3 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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.