Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-25 20:39 UTC

FOLIO-FSE / folio_migration_tools

A Python module and CLI tool that transforms legacy ILS data into the native FOLIO formats and loads it into FOLIO

PythonMIT★ 14 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Aug 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

FOLIO-FSE/folio_migration_tools holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

32 followers26 public repossince Aug 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIfolio_migration_tools1.12.92,5311740 days agofolioilslsplibrary-systemsmarc21library-data

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 243 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year243
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.12.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases7
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars — 14 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars14
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
45.4/80Monthly downloads — 2,531 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfolio_migration_tools
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,531
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.405
How it's scored
36.4/42Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
28/30PR acceptance — 334/358 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs334
open_issues90
closed_issues584
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.866
closed_unmerged_prs24
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
10.9/25Owner reach — 32 followers of FOLIO-FSE
22.4/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers32
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginFOLIO-FSE
public_repos26
account_age_days2,934

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8, .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://folio-migration-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfolio, folio-lsp, code4lib, marc21
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://folio-migration-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.2/40Legible commit history — 6 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.06
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8, .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — mypy.ini
0/10Reproducible environment
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesnoxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (mypy.ini)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 2/127 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes238,439
source_files_sampled127
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

14GitHub stars
14contributors
243commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
90open 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:folio_migration_tools@1.12.9; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
89Releases

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.

0246810121122020-052023-052026-04
Major 0Minor 3Patch 20

Each point covers 6 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 · 2026-08-25 20:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
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 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIfolioclient>=1.0.11,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyhumps>=3.7.3,<4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIdefusedxml>=0.7.1,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>=2.8.2,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfolio-uuid>=1.0.1,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpymarc>=5.2.3,<6.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.12.3,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIargparse-prompt>=0.0.5,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIdeepdiff>=8.6.2,<9.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyaml>=21.10.1,<22.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-i18n>=0.3.9,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIart>=6.5,<7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfolio-data-import>=0.5.0,<0.7.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIargparse-prompt—direct
PyPIart—direct
PyPIdeepdiff—direct
PyPIdefusedxml—direct
PyPIfolio-data-import—direct
PyPIfolio-uuid—direct
PyPIfolioclient—direct
PyPIpyaml—direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpyhumps—direct
PyPIpymarc—direct
PyPIpython-dateutil—direct
PyPIpython-i18n—direct
PyPIblack—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIdarglint—indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPIflake8-bandit—indirect
PyPIflake8-black—indirect
PyPIflake8-bugbear—indirect
PyPIflake8-docstrings—indirect
PyPIflake8-isort—indirect
PyPIipykernel—indirect
PyPIlxml—indirect
PyPIm2r—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPIpyrefly—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints—indirect
PyPIsphinx-book-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPItoml—indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil—indirect
PyPIuv-build—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.

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.