Public record
Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 04:41 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⑂ 55 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

EmilStenstrom/conllu holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Emil StenströmPersonal account
180 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
PyPIconllu6.0.0410,44261645 days agoconlluconllconll-uparsernlp

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 5 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume18 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases5 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 645 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~120.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tag6.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release645
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.7/60Stars323 stars
14.4/25Forks55 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks55
stars323
watchers6
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
74.8/80Monthly downloads410,442 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesconllu
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads410,442
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth22 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.8
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance67/76 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs67
open_issues0
closed_issues47
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
16.2/25Owner reach180 followers of EmilStenstrom
24.9/25Track record58 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers180
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginEmilStenstrom
public_repos58
account_age_days5,970
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 645 days ago
20/20Version history61 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesconllu
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish645

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configtox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests16 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
10/10Topics4 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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests16 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories3
affected_packages2
assessed_packages59
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2
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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configtox.ini
11/11Static type checkingconllu/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (conllu/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes26,638
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

323GitHub stars
22contributors
18commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 323 ★ / 0 ⇿
323Stars

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.

012525037532372016-082021-072026-06

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 04:40 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
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
8Vulnerabilities2 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 2

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: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.1.7indirecthigh18.3.3
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 v0.17.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.