Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 21:27 UTC

Cranot / roam-code

Local codebase intelligence CLI + MCP server for AI coding agents: SQLite code graph, 28 languages, 287 commands, 246 MCP tools, change-safety gates, audit evidence, zero API keys.

PythonApache-2.0★ 516 stars⑂ 49 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryMCP serverhow this is determined

Cranot/roam-code holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (53/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DimitrisPersonal account

125 followers49 public repossince Nov 2018CosmoHac

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	roam-code	14.0.4	5,430	93	3 days ago	agent-os agentic-assurance ai-agents ai-coding audit-trail blast-radius change-evidence code-analysis code-review codebase-intelligence developer-tools evidence-compiler local-first mcp mcp-server model-context-protocol preflight sarif security software-architecture static-analysis tree-sitter

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
14.5/36	Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 2,649 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	2,649
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	21

Release discipline

98Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 74 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~6.6 days
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	74
latest_release_tag	v14.0.4
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	3
mean_days_between_releases	6.6

Community & Adoption

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

72Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

62Moderate

How it's scored

44/60	Stars — 516 stars
14/25	Forks — 49 forks
4.3/15	Watchers — 7 watchers

Inputs used

forks	49
stars	516
watchers	7
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

62Moderate

How it's scored

49.8/80	Monthly downloads — 5,430 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	roam-code
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	5,430
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.995

Issue & PR responsiveness

50Moderate

How it's scored

35.7/42	Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
8/30	PR acceptance — 22/83 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	22
open_issues	3
closed_issues	17
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.85
closed_unmerged_prs	61
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

62Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.1/25	Owner reach — 125 followers of Cranot
24.4/25	Track record — 49 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	125
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	Cranot
public_repos	49
account_age_days	2,868

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20	Version history — 93 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	roam-code
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://roam-code.com/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 20 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ai-coding, cli, code-analysis, code-graph, code-intelligence, code-quality, mcp-server, static-analysis, tree-sitter, developer-tools, model-context-protocol, python, graph-analysis, mcp, ai-agents, code-review, local-first, refactoring, software-architecture, sqlite
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://roam-code.com/
docs_site	https://roam-code.com/
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?

71Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

64Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	6.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests. 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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	4
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:roam-code@14.0.4 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 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.

83Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40	Legible commit history — 93 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.93
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	59,973

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

75Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, 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
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.4/55	Manageable file sizes — 68/2,365 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	803,893
source_files_sampled	2,365
oversized_source_files	68

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — demos, examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	demos, examples
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

516GitHub stars

3contributors

2,649commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

74releases

1bus factor

3open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'roam-code' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
pypi download figures for roam-code carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 49 ⇿

0Stars

49Forks

70Releases

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 4Minor 20Patch 22

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10

6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 21:27 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
9	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
8	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0	Vulnerabilities	12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	click	`>=8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tree-sitter	`>=0.23`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tree-sitter-language-pack	`>=1.13.3,<1.14`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	networkx	`>=3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli	`—`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 172

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 162 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	click	`—`	direct
PyPI	click	`8.3.3`	direct
PyPI	networkx	`—`	direct
PyPI	networkx	`3.4.2`	direct
PyPI	networkx	`3.6.1`	direct
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter	`—`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter	`0.25.2`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter-language-pack	`—`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter-language-pack	`1.13.3`	direct
PyPI	aiofile	`3.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	authlib	`1.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	backports-asyncio-runner	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	beartype	`0.22.9`	indirect
PyPI	boolean-py	`5.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`—`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachecontrol	`0.14.4`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`7.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	caio	`0.9.25`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.4.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	cyclonedx-python-lib	`—`	indirect
PyPI	cyclonedx-python-lib	`11.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	cyclopts	`4.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	docstring-parser	`0.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	email-validator	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	fastmcp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	fastmcp	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	fastmcp-slim	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.29.0`	indirect
PyPI	flatbuffers	`25.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	fsspec	`2026.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	griffelib	`2.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`—`	indirect
PyPI	hf-xet	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpx-sse	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	huggingface-hub	`1.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	igraph	`—`	indirect
PyPI	igraph	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	joserfc	`1.7.3`	indirect
PyPI	jsonref	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-path	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	leidenalg	`—`	indirect
PyPI	leidenalg	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	license-expression	`30.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	lightgbm	`—`	indirect
PyPI	lightgbm	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mcp	`1.29.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	mpmath	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	msgpack	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.5`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime	`—`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime	`1.24.3`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime	`1.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	openapi-pydantic	`0.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.41.1`	indirect
PyPI	packageurl-python	`0.17.6`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pathable	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pip	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pip-api	`0.0.34`	indirect
PyPI	pip-audit	`2.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	pip-requirements-parser	`32.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.9.6`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`7.34.1`	indirect
PyPI	py-key-value-aio	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	py-serializable	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.4`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.4`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-settings	`2.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pypdf	`6.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyperclip	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	python-multipart	`0.0.32`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`311`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich-rst	`1.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	roam-code	`—`	indirect
PyPI	roam-code	`14.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.12`	indirect
PyPI	rustworkx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	rustworkx	`0.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.15.3`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`83.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	sse-starlette	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	sympy	`1.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	texttable	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	tokenizers	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tokenizers	`0.23.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`4.67.3`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`—`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	typer	`0.25.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	uncalled-for	`0.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.46.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchfiles	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`16.0`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`0.48.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:roam-code@14.0.4 pulls in 4 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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