Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-03 18:06 UTC

EOCoreINT / pygeofetch

Fetch any satellite data from 20+ providers with one command. USGS, Copernicus, Planet, Maxar, NASA, and more. One pipeline, any satellite.

Jupyter Notebook · PythonMIT★ 7 stars⑂ 1 forksince May 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

EOCoreINT/pygeofetch holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on Security (31/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

36
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.

36
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 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

EOCoreINT-CommunityOrganization
1 follower8 public repossince Jul 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIpygeofetch1.9.7-340 days agosatelliteremote-sensinggisearth-observationgeospatialsarsentinellandsat

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

32At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

53Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
14.5/18Commit volume — 40 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year40
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

1Critical
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?

40Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

13Critical
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars — 7 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars7
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
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_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

36Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
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
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
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_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
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): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

49Weak
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of EOCoreINT
7.1/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginEOCoreINT
public_repos8
account_age_days20
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
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_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk
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
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
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
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

18Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.2/40Legible commit history — 15 of 44 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.341
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

50Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 44
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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Jupyter Notebook without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 1/125 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJupyter Notebook
largest_source_bytes72,151
source_files_sampled125
oversized_source_files1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
has_mcp_signalno
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

7GitHub stars
1contributors
40commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open 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:pygeofetch@1.9.7; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-03 18:06 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
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIhttpx>=0.27pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.5pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-settings>=2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML>=6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=42.0pyproject.toml
PyPIkeyring>=24.3pyproject.toml
PyPItenacity>=8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>=2.9pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.31pyproject.toml
PyPIanyio>=4.2pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.26pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm>=4.66pyproject.toml
PyPIokada-wrapper—pyproject.toml
PyPIunlzw3—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 55 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIanyio—direct
PyPIclick—direct
PyPIcryptography—direct
PyPIhttpx—direct
PyPIkeyring—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpydantic-settings—direct
PyPIpython-dateutil—direct
PyPIpyyaml—direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPItenacity—direct
PyPItqdm—direct
PyPIbokeh—indirect
PyPIboto3—indirect
PyPIbranca—indirect
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcontextily—indirect
PyPIcroniter—indirect
PyPIeodag—indirect
PyPIeoreader—indirect
PyPIfolium—indirect
PyPIgeemap—indirect
PyPIgeopandas—indirect
PyPIgeoplot—indirect
PyPIipyevents—indirect
PyPIipyfilechooser—indirect
PyPIipyleaflet—indirect
PyPIipysheet—indirect
PyPIipython—indirect
PyPIipywidgets—indirect
PyPIjupyter—indirect
PyPIkeplergl—indirect
PyPIleafmap—indirect
PyPIlocaltileserver—indirect
PyPImapclassify—indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPImplleaflet—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIopensartoolkit—indirect
PyPIosmnx—indirect
PyPIplanetary-computer—indirect
PyPIplotly—indirect
PyPIplotly-geo—indirect
PyPIpyarrow—indirect
PyPIpyproj—indirect
PyPIpystac—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-mock—indirect
PyPIrasterio—indirect
PyPIrioxarray—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIsarxarray—indirect
PyPIscikit-image—indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIseaborn—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIshapely—indirect
PyPIsidecar—indirect
PyPIsnaphu—indirect
PyPIspyndex—indirect
PyPIstreamlit—indirect
PyPItwine—indirect
PyPIwhitebox—indirect
PyPIwhiteboxgui—indirect
PyPIxarray—indirect
PyPIxyzservices—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with EOCoreINT/pygeofetch. Read them side by side →

45firmanhadi21/rs-change-detectionWeak87sertit/eoreaderRemote-sensing opensource python library reading optical and SAR sensors, loading and stacking bands, clouds, DEM and spectral indices in a sensor-agnostic way.Excellent71opengeos/maplibre-gl-planetary-computerAn ineractive web app for searching, visualizing, and downloading data from Planetary ComputerGood81giswqs/geospatialA Python package for installing commonly used packages for geospatial analysis and data visualization with only one command.Excellent65EarthBigData/openSEPPOopen SEPPO ToolsGood54jblindsay/whitebox_next_genWhitebox Next Generation Rust monorepoModerate

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.