Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-29 14:03 UTC

Furox-Art / scientific-computing-system-2.0

Scientific computing platform on NumPy/SciPy/pandas/matplotlib: linear algebra, stats, optimization, signals, ML, information theory, chaos, Bayes, metaheuristics, geometry and RL.

PythonMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Furox-Art/scientific-computing-system-2.0 holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated today. 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

FuroxPersonal account
4 followers44 public repossince Aug 2024

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 162 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_year162
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year5

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv5.2.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases4.1
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.2/80Monthly downloads — 5,867 downloads/month across npm, pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesscientific-computing-system-2.0, scientific-computing-system-2.0
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm, pypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,867
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?

49Weak · 23% of overall
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
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
26.2/30PR acceptance — 21/24 decided PRs merged
12.3/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 17/18 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs21
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d17
prs_decided_30d18
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d17
first_time_prs_decided_30d18
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5/25Owner reach — 4 followers of Furox-Art
16.3/25Track record — 44 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginFurox-Art
public_repos44
account_age_days780
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on npm, pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 10 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesscientific-computing-system-2.0, scientific-computing-system-2.0
ecosystemsnpm, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
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://furox-art.github.io/scientific-computing-system-2.0/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 12 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbayesian-inference, chaos-theory, computational-geometry, information-theory, machine-learning, matplotlib, metaheuristics, numpy, pandas, reinforcement-learning, scientific-computing, scipy
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://furox-art.github.io/scientific-computing-system-2.0/
docs_sitehttps://furox-art.github.io/scientific-computing-system-2.0/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
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
2/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.4/40Legible commit history — 43 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.457
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.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/cds2/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_configssrc/cds2/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/cds2/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/178 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes36,851
source_files_sampled178
oversized_source_files0
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 — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

1GitHub stars
1contributors
162commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index npm:scientific-computing-system-2.0@2.0.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-29 14:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=1.26pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.11pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=2.2pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=3.8pyproject.toml
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPImatplotlib—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPIscipy—direct
PyPIhypothesis—indirect
PyPImkdocs—indirect
PyPImkdocs-material—indirect
PyPImkdocstrings—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPInetworkx—indirect
PyPIpandas-stubs—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIscikit-learn—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—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 — npm, PyPI.