Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 18:33 UTC

Binomica-Labs / SpliceCraft

Terminal-based plasmid map viewer, sequence editor, and cloning/mutagenesis workbench in pure Python

PythonMIT★ 242 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolTerminal interfaceLibraryhow this is determined

Binomica-Labs/SpliceCraft holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Binomica LabsOrganization
114 followers9 public repossince Sep 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIsplicecraft1.2.581,6503120 days agobioinformaticscloninggenbankgolden-braidmolecular-biologyplasmidprimer3terminaltui

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 677 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_year677
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.2.58
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases4.3

Community & Adoption

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

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.6/60Stars — 242 stars
9.8/25Forks — 16 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars242
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
42.9/80Monthly downloads — 1,650 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessplicecraft
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,650
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?

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 62% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.618
How it's scored
32.7/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — 0/3 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_prs0
open_issues4
closed_issues14
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.778
closed_unmerged_prs3
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14.8/25Owner reach — 114 followers of Binomica-Labs
19.3/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers114
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginBinomica-Labs
public_repos9
account_age_days4,370

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 — 312 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessplicecraft
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-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_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 17 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbioengineering, biology, genetics, microbiology, molecular-biology, plasmid, pure-python, terminal-ui, workbench, biopython, cloning, moclo, mutagenesis, primer3, textual, golden-braid, restriction-enzymes
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
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
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
21.3/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: biopython 1.86.0 (moderate 4.9)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
35.6/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 269 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages17
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the pypi:splicecraft@1.2.58 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 17 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.1/40Legible commit history — 4 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.04
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes33,591
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
8/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_share0.04
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
41.1/55Manageable file sizes — 38/150 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes5,456,272
source_files_sampled150
oversized_source_files38

Key facts

242GitHub stars
2contributors
677commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 16 ⇿
0Stars
16Forks
99Releases

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.

04812161622026-032026-062026-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 98
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 18:33 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
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItextual>=8.2.8pyproject.toml
PyPIbiopython>=1.86,<1.87pyproject.toml
PyPIedlib>=1.3.9pyproject.toml
PyPIprimer3-py>=2.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs>=4.10.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyhmmer>=0.12.1pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow>=12.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyspellchecker>=0.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich-pixels>=3.0.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbiopython—direct
PyPIpillow—direct
PyPIplatformdirs—direct
PyPIprimer3-py—direct
PyPIpyhmmer—direct
PyPIpyspellchecker—direct
PyPIrich-pixels—direct
PyPItextual—direct
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIhatchling—indirect
PyPIhypothesis—indirect
PyPIpyright—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPItwine—indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:splicecraft@1.2.58 pulls in 17 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
biopython1.86.0directmoderate21.87

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.