Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-30 22:25 UTC

Bluetooth-Devices / dbus-fast

A faster version of dbus-next

PythonMIT★ 98 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Sep 2022View on GitHub ↗

Bluetooth-Devices/dbus-fast holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (68/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Bluetooth DevicesOrganization
227 followers48 public repossince Jul 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIdbus-fast5.0.222,084,12927155 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
18/36Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 284 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year284
human_commit_share0.89
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 55 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv5.0.22
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release55
mean_days_between_releases1.2

Community & Adoption

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

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.2/60Stars — 98 stars
11.9/25Forks — 28 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars98
watchers4
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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 2,084,129 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdbus-fast
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads2,084,129
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 22 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.568
How it's scored
37.4/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance — 616/702 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 24/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs616
open_issues8
closed_issues65
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.89
closed_unmerged_prs86
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
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
17/25Owner reach — 227 followers of Bluetooth-Devices
20.4/25Track record — 48 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers227
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginBluetooth-Devices
public_repos48
account_age_days1,473

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 55 days ago
20/20Version history — 271 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdbus-fast
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish55

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 24/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 28 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 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.6

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
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages51
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1, low 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 51 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.

81Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 67 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.753
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes17,727
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile, docs/source/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8
11/11Static type checking — src/dbus_fast/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, docs/source/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/dbus_fast/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/dbus_fast/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/94 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes53,368
source_files_sampled94
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files

Key facts

98GitHub stars
22contributors
284commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
8open 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 ★ / 28 ⇿
0Stars
28Forks
100Releases

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.

0510152025302812022-112024-082026-06
Major 3Minor 27Patch 70

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-30 22:25 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 24/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 28 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 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 51

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIblockbuster1.5.26indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.1.31indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcovdefaults2.3.0indirect
PyPIcoverage7.10.6indirect
PyPIcython3.2.5indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.2indirect
PyPIforbiddenfruit0.1.4indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.2indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.4.2indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImyst-parser4.0.1indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpycairo1.29.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.1indirect
PyPIpygobject3.56.3indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-codspeed5.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIrich13.9.4indirect
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-asyncio0.3.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-fulltoc1.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.12.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 51 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
setuptools82.0.1indirectmoderate283.0.0
pygments2.19.1indirectlow22.20.0

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.