Public recordExceptional
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 23:39 UTC
CanalTP / navitia
The open source software to build cool stuff with locomotion
CanalTP/navitia holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (97/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (53/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.
94
overall / 100Software 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.
94
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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
HoveOrganization
37 followers57 public repossince Nov 2012
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
97
Development activity
95Exceptional
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 1 days ago |
| 31.2/36 | Commit cadence — 45/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 222 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 222 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 1 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 45 |
Release discipline
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 100 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 1 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~6.2 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 100 |
| latest_release_tag | v15.113.1 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 1 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 6.2 |
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?
69
Popularity & adoption
69Good
How it's scored
| 43.1/60 | Stars — 456 stars |
| 17.6/25 | Forks — 129 forks |
| 8.6/15 | Watchers — 36 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 129 |
| stars | 456 |
| watchers | 36 |
| 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 (AGPL-3.0) |
| 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 | — |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
82
How it's scored
| 36/54 | Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 18.3/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 19% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 77 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 3 |
| contributors_sampled | 77 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.186 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
87Excellent
How it's scored
| 32.8/42 | Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed |
| 27.5/30 | PR acceptance — 4,023/4,392 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 15/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 4,023 |
| open_issues | 38 |
| closed_issues | 135 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.78 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 369 |
| 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.
Ownership & stewardship
83Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 11.4/25 | Owner reach — 37 followers of hove-io |
| 24.8/25 | Track record — 57 public repos, account ~13 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 37 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | hove-io |
| public_repos | 57 |
| account_age_days | 5,001 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
96
Engineering practices
94Exceptional
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 4 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — .flake8 |
| 9.6/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
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://doc.navitia.io/ |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 9 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | public-transportation, navitia, open-api, journey-planner, gtfs, trip-planner, mobility, mobility-as-a-service, trip-planning |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://doc.navitia.io/ |
| docs_site | https://doc.navitia.io/ |
| 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?
60
Security posture
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0.8/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 19 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 |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 0/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 5/5 | SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 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 |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 28 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 6 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
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.
53
Agent context & guidance
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| 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
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — docker/libkeepalive-0.3/Makefile, docker/libkeepalive-0.3/src/Makefile, docker/libkeepalive-0.3/test/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — .flake8 |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no data |
| 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 | Pipfile.lock |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | docker/libkeepalive-0.3/Makefile, docker/libkeepalive-0.3/src/Makefile, docker/libkeepalive-0.3/test/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Code legibility for models
54Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config |
| 53.6/55 | Manageable file sizes — 25/966 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | 272,270 |
| source_files_sampled | 966 |
| oversized_source_files | 25 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| 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
456GitHub stars
77contributors
222commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
3bus factor
38open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 1 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 10 | Code-Review | all changesets reviewed |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 19 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 |
| 10 | Maintained | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 0 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | SAST | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 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 |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 28 existing vulnerabilities detected |
All dependencies 91
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 91 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | alembic | 1.0.11 | indirect |
| PyPI | amqp | 5.0.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | aniso8601 | 0.82 | indirect |
| PyPI | argparse | 1.2.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | argparse | 1.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | blinker | 1.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | boto3 | 1.28.82 | indirect |
| PyPI | celery | 5.2.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | certifi | 2026.6.17 | indirect |
| PyPI | chardet | 3.0.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 3.4.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | click | 8.0.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | coloredlogs | 10.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | configobj | 5.0.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | docker | 7.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | docopt | 0.6.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | dramatiq | — | indirect |
| PyPI | flask | 2.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | flask | 3.1.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | flask-caching | 2.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | flask-cors | 6.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | flask-migrate | 2.5.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | flask-restful | 0.3.10 | indirect |
| PyPI | flask-script | 0.6.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | flask-sqlalchemy | 2.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | flex | 6.10.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | flexpolyline | 0.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | future | 0.15.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | future | 0.18.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | geoalchemy2 | 0.2.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | geojson | 2.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | gevent | 23.9.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | idna | 3.18 | indirect |
| PyPI | itsdangerous | 2.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | itsdangerous | 2.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | jinja2 | 3.1.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | jmespath | 0.9.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | jsonschema | 2.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | kombu | 5.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | logfmter | 0.0.11 | indirect |
| PyPI | mako | 0.9.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | markupsafe | 2.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | markupsafe | 2.1.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | markupsafe | 3.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | minio | 6.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | mock | 1.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | mock | 4.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | numpy | 1.22.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | opentelemetry-api | 1.28.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-http | 1.15.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | opentelemetry-sdk | 1.28.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pickle-mixin | 1.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | plotly | 4.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | polyline | 2.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pre-commit | 2.9.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | protobuf | 3.20.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | psycopg2-binary | 2.9.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | pybreaker | 0.2.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | pygal | 2.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | 9.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-cov | 3.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-cov | 4.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-mock | 3.14.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-timeout | 1.3.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-dateutil | 2.8.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-json-logger | 0.1.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytz | 2023.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyzmq | 25.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | redis | 2.10.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests | 2.33.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests-mock | 1.12.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | retrying | 1.3.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | serpy-ctp | 0.2.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | setuptools | 80.9.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | shapely | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | shapely | 1.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | shapely | 1.8.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | shortuuid | 0.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | six | 1.13.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | sortedcontainers | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | sqlalchemy | 1.3.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | swagger-spec-validator | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | tqdm | 4.66.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.0.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.7.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | validate-email | 1.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | validators | 0.10 | indirect |
| PyPI | vine | 5.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | werkzeug | 2.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | werkzeug | 3.1.8 | indirect |
| PyPI | zeep | 1.1.0 | indirect |
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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.