Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 10:45 UTC

EmilStenstrom / conllu

A CoNLL-U parser that takes a CoNLL-U formatted string and turns it into a nested python dictionary.

PythonMIT★ 323 stars⑂ 56 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

EmilStenstrom/conllu holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on Vitality (41/100). It was last updated 38 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Emil StenströmPersonal account
182 followers58 public repossince Mar 2010@odevo-dev

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIconllu6.0.0189,35561698 days agoconlluconllconll-uparsernlp

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

41Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 38 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume — 16 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share0.48
days_since_last_push38
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 5 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 698 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~120.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tag6.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release698
mean_days_between_releases120.6
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.7/60Stars — 323 stars
14.5/25Forks — 56 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks56
stars323
watchers6
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
70.4/80Monthly downloads — 189,355 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesconllu
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads189,355
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 92% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.915
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance — 67/76 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs67
open_issues0
closed_issues47
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.3/25Owner reach — 182 followers of EmilStenstrom
24.9/25Track record — 58 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers182
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginEmilStenstrom
public_repos58
account_age_days6,023
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 698 days ago
20/20Version history — 61 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesconllu
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish698

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.isort]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsconll, conll-u, natural-language-processing, python
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 16 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories9
affected_packages3
assessed_packages59
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 3
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 59 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.2/40Legible commit history — 11 of 48 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.229
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.isort]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — conllu/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 52 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsconllu/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.52
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (conllu/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes26,638
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

323GitHub stars
20contributors
16commits, last 12 months
38days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-06-06: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 323 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 323 ★ / 56 ⇿
323Stars
56Forks
5Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-06-06. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

01252503753235562016-082021-082026-08
Major 2Minor 0Patch 3

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 10:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests16 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 59

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 59 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIbuild1.2.1indirect
PyPIcachetools5.3.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.7.4indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.3.2indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.0indirect
PyPIcryptography48.0.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.8indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIflake87.1.0indirect
PyPIflake8-pyproject1.2.3indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context5.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.0.1indirect
PyPIjeepney0.8.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.2.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.3.0indirect
PyPImypy1.10.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPInh30.2.18indirect
PyPIpackaging24.1indirect
PyPIpip-tools7.4.1indirect
PyPIpkginfo1.10.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.2.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.12.0indirect
PyPIpycparser2.22indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.2.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.7.1indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer44.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich13.7.1indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.3.3indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItox4.16.0indirect
PyPItwine5.1.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.36.1indirect
PyPIwheel0.46.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.19.2indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 59 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.1.7indirecthigh18.3.3
cryptography48.0.1indirecthigh650.0.0
jaraco-context5.3.0indirecthigh26.1.0

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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.