Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 11:12 UTC

EbbLabs / python-tidal

Python API for TIDAL music streaming service

PythonLGPL-3.0★ 560 stars⑂ 124 forkssince Jul 2014View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

EbbLabs/python-tidal holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated 30 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Good

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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

EbbLabs Org.Organization

1 follower2 public repossince May 2025

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
PyPI	tidalapi	0.8.11	-	33	237 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

54Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 30 days ago
9/36	Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18	Commit volume — 44 commits in the last year
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

commits_last_year	44
human_commit_share	0.98
days_since_last_push	30
active_weeks_last_year	13

Release discipline

63Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 29 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 237 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~46.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	29
latest_release_tag	v0.8.11
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	237
mean_days_between_releases	46.4

Community & Adoption

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

67Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

69Good

How it's scored

44.6/60	Stars — 560 stars
17.4/25	Forks — 124 forks
7.1/15	Watchers — 20 watchers

Inputs used

forks	124
stars	560
watchers	20
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

65Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (LGPL-3.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	1
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 34 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	34
top_contributor_share	0.565

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

38/42	Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
25/30	PR acceptance — 124/149 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	124
open_issues	21
closed_issues	200
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.905
closed_unmerged_prs	25
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

38Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
2.2/25	Owner reach — 1 followers of EbbLabs
6.2/25	Track record — 2 public repos, account ~1 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	EbbLabs
public_repos	2
account_age_days	496

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 237 days ago
20/20	Version history — 33 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	tidalapi
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	237

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.isort]), tox.ini
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 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	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://tidalapi.netlify.app
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	python, tidal, music, streaming
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://tidalapi.netlify.app
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

42Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 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
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 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
0.8/7.5	Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 38 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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	12
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:tidalapi@0.8.11 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 12 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

21At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.2/40	Legible commit history — 39 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.398
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.isort]), tox.ini
11/11	Static type checking — tidalapi/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	yes
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	tidalapi/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.02

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (tidalapi/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/30 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	44,940
source_files_sampled	30
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

560GitHub stars

34contributors

44commits, last 12 months

30days since last push

29releases

1bus factor

21open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'tidalapi' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 124 ⇿

0Stars

124Forks

29Releases

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 0Minor 3Patch 25

Each point covers 11 days.

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 · 2026-09-14 11:12 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	12 out of 12 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
6	Code-Review	Found 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 7 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
1	Maintained	2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	38 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	requests	`^2.32.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dateutil	`^2.8.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`^4.12.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	isodate	`^0.7.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	mpegdash	`^0.4.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyaes	`^1.6.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 50 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	isodate	`0.7.2`	direct
PyPI	mpegdash	`0.4.1`	direct
PyPI	pyaes	`1.6.1`	direct
PyPI	python-dateutil	`—`	direct
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.32.4`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.13.2`	direct
PyPI	black	`24.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`5.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.10.5`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`1.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	chardet	`5.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`43.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	docformatter	`1.7.6`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	ffmpeg-python	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	future	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-resources	`6.4.5`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`5.13.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`24.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	pillow	`10.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-api	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`7.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.0.277`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rtd-theme	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`4.25.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-python-dateutil	`2.9.0.20241206`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.32.0.20241016`	indirect
PyPI	types-urllib3	`1.26.25.14`	indirect
PyPI	untokenize	`0.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.36.1`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.20.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:tidalapi@0.8.11 pulls in 12 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