Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-29 00:16 UTC

CFBD / cbbd-python

PythonNo license detected★ 10 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jan 2025View on GitHub ↗

CFBD/cbbd-python holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (26/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
overall / 100
Weak

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.

42
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

96 followers21 public repossince Apr 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIcbbd1.29.02,354660 days agoopenapiopenapi-generatorcollege-basketball-data-api

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

26At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.4/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 1 of the last 68 commits human-authored, spanning 610 days
0.5/18Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 1 of the last 68 commits human-authored, spanning 610 days
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share0.015
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

30At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars — 10 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars10
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45/80Monthly downloads — 2,354 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescbbd
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,354
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?

49Weak · 23% of overall
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
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
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_issues1
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.5
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14.3/25Owner reach — 96 followers of CFBD
21.8/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers96
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginCFBD
public_repos21
account_age_days2,358

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
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.
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

46Weak · 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
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: urllib3 2.2.3 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 467 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories18
affected_packages3
assessed_packages28
unassessed_packages8
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 28 resolved dependencies against OSV. 8 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — cbbd/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 68
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_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configscbbd/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (cbbd/py.typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/268 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes63,110
source_files_sampled268
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

10GitHub stars
1contributors
28commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
1open 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:cbbd@1.29.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks

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.

12233312025-102025-112025-12
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-29 00:16 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
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIurllib3>= 1.25.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>=2.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic^1.10.5, <2pyproject.toml
PyPIaenum>=3.1.11pyproject.toml
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaenum—direct
PyPIaenum3.1.17direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpydantic1.10.26direct
PyPIpython-dateutil—direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIurllib32.2.3direct
PyPIcachetools5.5.2indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIflake85.0.4indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.9.1indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.5.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.8.0indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.5indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly—indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.1indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItox4.25.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.4.3indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 28 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 8 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
urllib32.2.3directhigh122.7.0
filelock3.16.1indirectmoderate43.20.3
pytest8.3.5indirectmoderate29.0.3

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.