Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-17 13:49 UTC

Cyberdrop-DL / cyberdrop-dl

Bulk asynchronous downloader for multiple file hosts

PythonGPL-3.0★ 760 stars⑂ 67 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#asyncio #bunkr #cyberdrop #downloader #dropbox #mega-nz #gofile #mediafire #google-drive #patreon #twitch #pawchive #pinterest #pixeldrain #transfer-it #twitter #filester #onedrive

Cyberdrop-DL/cyberdrop-dl holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Cyberdrop-DLOrganization

7 followers2 public repossince Apr 2026

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	cyberdrop-dl-patched	10.12.0	7,831	286	0 days ago	asyncio bunkr cyberdrop downloader dropbox gofile google-drive mediafire mega.nz onedrive patreon pixeldrain twitch twitter

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

96Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.8/36	Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,337 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,337
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	46

Release discipline

74Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 7 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 110 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~109.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	7
latest_release_tag	10.0.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	110
mean_days_between_releases	109.6

Community & Adoption

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

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

68Good

How it's scored

46.7/60	Stars — 760 stars
15.2/25	Forks — 67 forks
6/15	Watchers — 13 watchers

Inputs used

forks	67
stars	760
watchers	13
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 (GPL-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	7
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

65Good

How it's scored

51.9/80	Monthly downloads — 7,831 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	cyberdrop-dl-patched
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	7,831
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?

69Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 41 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	41
top_contributor_share	0.426

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent

How it's scored

41.4/42	Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
28.6/30	PR acceptance — 1,558/1,633 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	1,558
open_issues	7
closed_issues	479
prs_merged_7d	4
prs_decided_7d	4
prs_merged_30d	15
prs_decided_30d	16
issue_closed_ratio	0.986
closed_unmerged_prs	75
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

41Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
6.5/25	Owner reach — 7 followers of Cyberdrop-DL
4.5/25	Track record — 2 public repos, account ~0 yr old

Inputs used

followers	7
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	Cyberdrop-DL
public_repos	2
account_age_days	182

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 — 286 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	cyberdrop-dl-patched
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 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
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 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://pypi.org/project/cyberdrop-dl-patched
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 18 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	asyncio, bunkr, cyberdrop, downloader, dropbox, mega-nz, gofile, mediafire, google-drive, patreon, twitch, pawchive, pinterest, pixeldrain, transfer-it, twitter, filester, onedrive
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://pypi.org/project/cyberdrop-dl-patched
docs_site	https://pypi.org/project/cyberdrop-dl-patched
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?

33At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

32At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 4 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 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
2/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	6.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	32
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	65

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

38Weak

How it's scored

5.7/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 5 affected: aiohttp 3.13.3 (critical 9.1), curl-cffi 0.13.0 (high 8.6), soupsieve 2.8.3 (high 7.5), +2 more
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
22.7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 198 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	92
affected_packages	12
assessed_packages	136
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 4, moderate 5, low 2
direct_affected_packages	5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 136 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://script-ware.gitbook.io/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://script-ware.gitbook.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.99
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/611 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	47,720
source_files_sampled	611
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

760GitHub stars

41contributors

1,337commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

7releases

2bus factor

7open 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:cyberdrop-dl-patched@10.12.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 67 ⇿

0Stars

67Forks

7Releases

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 1Patch 2

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10

6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-17 13:49 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
4	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	3 out of 3 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
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 4 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 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
4	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 31

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`>=2.7.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiohttp	`>=3.14.5, < 4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiolimiter	`>=1.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiosqlite	`>=0.22.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	async-mega-py	`>=2.5.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	backports.zstd	`>=1.8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`>=4.15.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	brotli	`>=1.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cffi	`== 2.1.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	curl-cffi	`==0.16.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cyclopts	`>=5.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	idna	`>=3.20`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	imagesize	`>= 2.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	m3u8	`>=6.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	markdown	`>=3.11.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	multidict	`>=7.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	propcache	`>=0.5.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psutil	`>=7.2.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pycparser	`>= 3.11.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pycryptodome	`>=4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`== 2.14.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`>=6.0.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	questionary	`>=2.1.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`>=15.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich-rst	`==2.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	send2trash	`>=2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	soupsieve	`>=3.0.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`>=4.16.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	wassima	`>=2.1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	wcwidth	`>=0.9.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	xxhash	`>=4.0.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 136

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 53 direct and 83 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.6.1`	direct
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.7.1`	direct
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.13.3`	direct
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.14.5`	direct
PyPI	aiolimiter	`1.2.1`	direct
PyPI	aiolimiter	`1.3.0`	direct
PyPI	aiosqlite	`0.22.1`	direct
PyPI	async-mega-py	`2.0.2`	direct
PyPI	async-mega-py	`2.5.0`	direct
PyPI	backports-zstd	`1.3.0`	direct
PyPI	backports-zstd	`1.8.0`	direct
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.14.3`	direct
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	brotli	`1.2.0`	direct
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	direct
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	direct
PyPI	curl-cffi	`0.13.0`	direct
PyPI	curl-cffi	`0.16.3`	direct
PyPI	cyclopts	`5.2.0`	direct
PyPI	idna	`3.11`	direct
PyPI	idna	`3.20`	direct
PyPI	imagesize	`1.4.1`	direct
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.1`	direct
PyPI	m3u8	`6.0.0`	direct
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.1`	direct
PyPI	markdown	`3.11.1`	direct
PyPI	multidict	`6.7.0`	direct
PyPI	multidict	`7.1.0`	direct
PyPI	propcache	`0.4.1`	direct
PyPI	propcache	`0.5.4`	direct
PyPI	psutil	`7.2.1`	direct
PyPI	psutil	`7.2.2`	direct
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	direct
PyPI	pycparser	`3.11`	direct
PyPI	pycryptodome	`3.23.0`	direct
PyPI	pycryptodome	`4.0.0`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.12.5`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.14.1`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	questionary	`2.1.1`	direct
PyPI	rich	`14.2.0`	direct
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	direct
PyPI	rich-rst	`2.2.0`	direct
PyPI	send2trash	`2.1.0`	direct
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.3`	direct
PyPI	soupsieve	`3.0.3`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	wassima	`2.1.4`	direct
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.2.14`	direct
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.9.2`	direct
PyPI	xxhash	`3.6.0`	direct
PyPI	xxhash	`4.0.1`	direct
PyPI	aiodns	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	aiofiles	`25.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	aiosignal	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	apprise	`1.9.7`	indirect
PyPI	apprise	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`25.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	brotlicffi	`1.2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`6.2.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	chardet	`5.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	cyberdrop-dl-patched	`10.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	dateparser	`1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	docstring-parser	`0.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.20.3`	indirect
PyPI	frozenlist	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.16`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	inquirerpy	`0.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	myjdapi	`1.1.10`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	oauthlib	`3.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	oauthlib	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pfzy	`0.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	prek	`0.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.52`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.53`	indirect
PyPI	py-markdown-table	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycares	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.41.5`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.50.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-api	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2025.2`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`312`	indirect
PyPI	regex	`2026.1.15`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-oauthlib	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.14.14`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`4.34.1`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2025.3`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.5`	indirect
PyPI	tzlocal	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.36.1`	indirect
PyPI	wreq	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.22.0`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.25.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 12

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 136 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 12 carry known advisories, of which 5 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
aiohttp	`3.13.3`	direct	critical	48	`3.14.3`
curl-cffi	`0.13.0`	direct	high	2	`0.15.0`
soupsieve	`2.8.3`	direct	high	8	`2.9.0`
urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect	high	10	`2.8.0`
virtualenv	`20.36.1`	indirect	high	8	`21.7.13`
idna	`3.11`	direct	moderate	2	`3.15`
multidict	`6.7.0`	direct	moderate	2	`6.9.1`
oauthlib	`3.3.1`	indirect	moderate	4	`4.0.0`
pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
requests	`2.32.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`2.33.0`
apprise	`1.9.7`	indirect	low	2	`1.11.0`
pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect	low	2	`2.20.0`

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

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