Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 07:49 UTC

HugoBlox / academic-file-converter

📚 Import Bibtex publications and Jupyter Notebook blog posts into your Markdown website or book. 将Bibtex转换为Markdown网站

Python · Jupyter NotebookMIT★ 419 stars⑂ 106 forkssince Oct 2018View on GitHub ↗

#academic #hugo #cli #bibtex #gatsby #nextjs #jekyll #biblatex #latex #markdown #markdown-converter #static-site-generator #wowchemy #astrojs #hugo-theme #bibliography #citations #csl-json #reference-manager

HugoBlox/academic-file-converter holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (68/100) and lowest on Vitality (41/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HugoBloxOrganization

232 followers20 public repossince Oct 2023

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	Tags
PyPI	academicpoints to another repo — not scored	0.11.2	-	29	969 days ago	research jupyter bibtex markdown latex publication reference academic converter

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

41Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

39Weak

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 944 daysautomated commits excludedreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintained

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
0.7/36	Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18	Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1
human_commit_share	0.97
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	1

Release discipline

44Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 22 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 962 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~166.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	22
latest_release_tag	v0.11.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	962
mean_days_between_releases	166.1

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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

65Good

How it's scored

42.5/60	Stars — 419 stars
16.8/25	Forks — 106 forks
5.3/15	Watchers — 10 watchers

Inputs used

forks	106
stars	419
watchers	10
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	17
top_contributor_share	0.844

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate

How it's scored

40.8/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
8.2/30	PR acceptance — 28/103 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	28
open_issues	2
closed_issues	68
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.971
closed_unmerged_prs	75
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.

Ownership & stewardship

78Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
17/25	Owner reach — 232 followers of HugoBlox
15.1/25	Track record — 20 public repos, account ~2 yr old

Inputs used

followers	232
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	HugoBlox
public_repos	20
account_age_days	996

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .flake8
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
6/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.hugoblox.com/reference/content-types/#automatically-import-publications-from-bibtex
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 19 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	academic, hugo, cli, bibtex, gatsby, nextjs, jekyll, biblatex, latex, markdown, markdown-converter, static-site-generator, wowchemy, astrojs, hugo-theme, bibliography, citations, csl-json, reference-manager
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://docs.hugoblox.com/reference/content-types/#automatically-import-publications-from-bibtex
docs_site	https://docs.hugoblox.com/reference/content-types/#automatically-import-publications-from-bibtex
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 1 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 81 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	3.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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	34
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:academic@0.11.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 34 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 88 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.907
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .flake8
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 3 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	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.03

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/9 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	9,084
source_files_sampled	9
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — notebooks

Inputs used

example_dirs	notebooks
has_mcp_signal	no
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

419GitHub stars

17contributors

1commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

22releases

1bus factor

2open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi package 'academic' points at a different repository (https://github.com/GetRD/academic-file-converter); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 106 ⇿

0Stars

106Forks

21Releases

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 7Patch 14

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10

3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-23 07:48 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3	CI-Tests	1 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	81 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	bibtexparser	`~1.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ruamel.yaml	`~0.17`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	nbconvert	`^7.10.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`^6.0.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 117

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 113 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	bibtexparser	`1.4.1`	direct
PyPI	nbconvert	`7.10.0`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.1`	direct
PyPI	ruamel-yaml	`0.17.40`	direct
PyPI	anyio	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	appnope	`0.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	argon2-cffi	`23.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	argon2-cffi-bindings	`21.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	arrow	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	asttokens	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	async-lru	`2.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`23.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.12.2`	indirect
PyPI	black	`23.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	bleach	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2023.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`1.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.7`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	comm	`0.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	debugpy	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	decorator	`5.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	executing	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	fastjsonschema	`2.18.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	fqdn	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.4`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipykernel	`6.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipython	`8.17.2`	indirect
PyPI	ipython-genutils	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipywidgets	`8.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	isoduration	`20.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`5.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	jedi	`0.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	json5	`0.9.14`	indirect
PyPI	jsonpointer	`2.4`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2023.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-client	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-console	`6.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-core	`5.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-events	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-lsp	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-server	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-server-terminals	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	jupyterlab	`4.0.8`	indirect
PyPI	jupyterlab-pygments	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	jupyterlab-server	`2.25.0`	indirect
PyPI	jupyterlab-widgets	`3.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib-inline	`0.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mistune	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	nbclient	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	nbformat	`5.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	nest-asyncio	`1.5.8`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	notebook	`7.0.6`	indirect
PyPI	notebook-shim	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	overrides	`7.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`23.2`	indirect
PyPI	pandocfilters	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	parso	`0.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.11.2`	indirect
PyPI	pexpect	`4.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`3.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	prometheus-client	`0.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.39`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`5.9.6`	indirect
PyPI	ptyprocess	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	pure-eval	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.21`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.334`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`7.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	python-json-logger	`2.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`306`	indirect
PyPI	pywinpty	`2.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	pyzmq	`25.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	qtconsole	`5.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	qtpy	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.30.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3339-validator	`0.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986-validator	`0.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruamel-yaml-clib	`0.2.8`	indirect
PyPI	send2trash	`1.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`68.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.5`	indirect
PyPI	stack-data	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	terminado	`0.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	tinycss2	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	tornado	`6.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	traitlets	`5.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-python-dateutil	`2.8.19.14`	indirect
PyPI	uri-template	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.2.9`	indirect
PyPI	webcolors	`1.13`	indirect
PyPI	webencodings	`0.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	websocket-client	`1.6.4`	indirect
PyPI	widgetsnbextension	`4.0.9`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:academic@0.11.2 pulls in 34 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 v0.27.0 — 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