Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-10 19:33 UTC

JPHutchins / camas

Parallel and sequential task-tree runner with matrix expansion and effects plugins.

PythonMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

JPHutchins/camas holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (49/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

JP HutchinsPersonal account
46 followers96 public repossince Dec 2017@Intercreate

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
PyPIcamas0.1.314,054310 days agotask-runnerparallelsequentialasyncgithubagentsci-cdmcp

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

81Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
16.6/36Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 607 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year607
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year24

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 33 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~10.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count33
latest_release_tag0.1.31
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases10.9
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

10Critical
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars — 5 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars5
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

60Moderate
How it's scored
48.1/80Monthly downloads — 4,054 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescamas
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,054
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.997

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
36.2/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
28.5/30PR acceptance — 134/141 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs134
open_issues27
closed_issues170
prs_merged_7d12
prs_decided_7d12
prs_merged_30d14
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.863
closed_unmerged_prs7
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.

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12/25Owner reach — 46 followers of JPHutchins
25/25Track record — 96 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers46
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginJPHutchins
public_repos96
account_age_days3,235
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.js, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

55Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 61 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
advisories39
affected_packages6
assessed_packages67
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 1, moderate 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 67 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

81Excellent
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — tests/fixtures/tauri-app/src-tauri/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.js, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/camas/py.typed, tests/fixtures/tauri-app/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 51 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/camas/py.typed, tests/fixtures/tauri-app/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.51
toolchain_manifeststests/fixtures/tauri-app/src-tauri/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

81Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/camas/py.typed, tests/fixtures/tauri-app/tsconfig.json)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 2/197 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes92,086
source_files_sampled197
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

5GitHub stars
3contributors
607commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
33releases
1bus factor
27open 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:camas@0.1.31; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
17Releases

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.

111222212026-062026-072026-07
Major 1Minor 0Patch 16
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-10 19:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 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 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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
0Vulnerabilities61 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIexceptiongroup>=1.2,<2pyproject.toml
PyPItaskgroup>=0.2,<1pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>=2,<3pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.12,<5pyproject.toml
All dependencies 67

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1direct
PyPItaskgroup0.2.2direct
PyPItomli2.4.1direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPIactionlint-py1.7.12.24indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIclick8.4.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIcryptography49.0.0indirect
PyPIcyclopts4.11.0indirect
PyPIdocstring-parser0.18.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhttpx-sse0.4.3indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.168.5indirect
PyPIidna3.13indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.9.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImcp1.27.2indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImsgspec0.21.1indirect
PyPImypy1.20.2indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.14.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpyrefly0.62.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.409indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.3.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32312indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIrich-rst1.3.2indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.5.1indirect
PyPIruff0.15.11indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.4.4indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPIty0.0.32indirect
PyPItypes-jsonschema4.26.0.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools82.0.0.20260408indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.49.0indirect
PyPIzuban0.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 67 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
anyio4.13.0indirectcritical44.14.2
pyjwt2.13.0indirectcritical282.15.0
mcp1.27.2indirecthigh21.28.1
cryptography49.0.0indirectmoderate250.0.0
idna3.13indirectmoderate23.15
pydantic-settings2.14.1indirectmoderate12.14.2

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with JPHutchins/camas. Read them side by side →

95jolicode/castor🦫 A lightweight and modern task runner for Automation, CI/CD & DevOps.Exceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional98googleapis/mcp-toolboxMCP Toolbox for Databases is an open source MCP server for databases.Exceptional98strands-agents/toolsA set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.Exceptional

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.