Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-31 03:58 UTC

BiocPy / biocframe

Bioconductor-like data frames

PythonMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jul 2022View on GitHub ↗

BiocPy/biocframe holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BiocPyOrganization

163 followers41 public repossince Jun 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	biocframe	0.8.0	6,381	62	0 days ago	bioconductor biocpy bioinformatics dataframe

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

55Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

51Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36	Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18	Commit volume — 10 commits in the last year
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

commits_last_year	10
human_commit_share	0.73
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	7

Release discipline

60Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 3 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,360 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~4.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	3
latest_release_tag	0.2.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,360
mean_days_between_releases	4.4

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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

12Critical

How it's scored

9.8/60	Stars — 5 stars
2.5/25	Forks — 3 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	3
stars	5
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	7
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

63Moderate

How it's scored

50.7/80	Monthly downloads — 6,381 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	biocframe
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	6,381
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 76% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.757

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.1/30	PR acceptance — 101/104 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	101
open_issues	0
closed_issues	35
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	3
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

66Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
15.9/25	Owner reach — 163 followers of BiocPy
20.3/25	Track record — 41 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	163
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	BiocPy
public_repos	41
account_age_days	1,542

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 62 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	biocframe
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
6/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://biocpy.github.io/biocframe/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	dataframe
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://biocpy.github.io/biocframe/
docs_site	https://biocpy.github.io/biocframe/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

47Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 9 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0.8/7.5	Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	4.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	11
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	158
unassessed_packages	13
affected_by_severity	high 2, moderate 3
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 158 resolved dependencies against OSV. 13 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
39.5/40	Legible commit history — 54 of 73 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.74
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

77Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
11/11	Static type checking — src/biocframe/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/biocframe/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

79Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/biocframe/py.typed)
51.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/17 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	72,949
source_files_sampled	17
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

5GitHub stars

4contributors

10commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

3releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:biocframe@0.8.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿

0Stars

3Forks

3Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 0Patch 2

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10

4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-31 03:57 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
3	CI-Tests	9 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
1	Maintained	2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4	Vulnerabilities	6 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	biocutils	`>=0.3.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	numpy	`>=1.26.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 171

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 164 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	biocutils	`—`	direct
PyPI	biocutils	`0.4.1`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`—`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.0.2`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.6`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.5.2`	direct
PyPI	accessible-pygments	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`0.7.16`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	appnope	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	asttokens	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	comm	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.4`	indirect
PyPI	debugpy	`1.8.21`	indirect
PyPI	decorator	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	executing	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	fastjsonschema	`2.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	fastjsonschema	`2.22.2`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`—`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2025.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.2.5`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.19`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipykernel	`6.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipykernel	`7.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipython	`8.18.1`	indirect
PyPI	ipython	`8.39.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipython	`9.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	ipython-pygments-lexers	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	jedi	`0.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	jedi	`0.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.25.1`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-cache	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-client	`8.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-client	`8.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-core	`5.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-core	`5.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	linkify-it-py	`2.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	linkify-it-py	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib-inline	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-nb	`—`	indirect
PyPI	myst-nb	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-nb	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`—`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`4.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nbclient	`0.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	nbclient	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	nbformat	`5.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	nbformat	`5.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	nest-asyncio	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	nest-asyncio2	`1.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`2.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`3.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	parso	`0.8.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pexpect	`4.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.4`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	polars	`—`	indirect
PyPI	polars	`1.36.1`	indirect
PyPI	polars	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	polars-runtime-32	`1.36.1`	indirect
PyPI	polars-runtime-32	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.52`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.53`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`7.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	ptyprocess	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	pure-eval	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2026.3.post1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`312`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyzmq	`27.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.36.2`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.27.1`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`2026.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`84.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools-scm	`—`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`7.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.13.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-basic-ng	`1.0.0b2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.0.52`	indirect
PyPI	stack-data	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`0.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tornado	`6.5.8`	indirect
PyPI	traitlets	`5.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	traitlets	`5.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.3`	indirect
PyPI	uc-micro-py	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	uc-micro-py	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.1`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 158 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 13 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
click	`8.1.8`	indirect	high	1	`8.3.3`
urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect	high	4	`2.7.0`
pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
requests	`2.32.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`2.33.0`
setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`83.0.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records