Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 02:01 UTC

JaidedAI / EasyOCR

Ready-to-use OCR with 80+ supported languages and all popular writing scripts including Latin, Chinese, Arabic, Devanagari, Cyrillic and etc.

Python · C++Apache-2.0★ 29,867 stars⑂ 3,595 forkssince Mar 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

JaidedAI/EasyOCR holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (76/100) and lowest on Vitality (23/100). It was last updated 242 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
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.

42
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jaided AIOrganization
237 followers1 public reposince Feb 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIeasyocr1.7.2-33679 days agoocropticalcharacterrecognitiondeeplearningneuralnetwork

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

23At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 242 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push242
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases23 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 679 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~131.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count23
latest_release_tagv1.7.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release679
mean_days_between_releases131.5

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

76Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars29,867 stars
25/25Forks3,595 forks
14/15Watchers329 watchers
Inputs used
forks3,595
stars29,867
watchers329
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.568
How it's scored
23.6/42Issue resolution56% of issues closed
23.2/30PR acceptance177/229 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 15/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs177
open_issues476
closed_issues610
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.562
closed_unmerged_prs52
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
17.1/25Owner reach237 followers of JaidedAI
14.2/25Track record1 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers237
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginJaidedAI
public_repos1
account_age_days2,352
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 679 days ago
20/20Version history33 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageseasyocr
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish679

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.jaided.ai
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics15 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsocr, deep-learning, crnn, pytorch, lstm, machine-learning, scene-text, scene-text-recognition, optical-character-recognition, cnn, data-mining, image-processing, python, easyocr, information-retrieval
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.jaided.ai
docs_sitehttps://www.jaided.ai
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 15/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities44 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages17
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:easyocr@1.7.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 17 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.4/40Legible commit history43 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.439
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes1/85 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes91,824
source_files_sampled85
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

29,867GitHub stars
99contributors
1commits, last 12 months
242days since last push
23releases
1bus factor
476open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3,595 ⇿
0Stars
3,595Forks
1Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

2,4002,6002,8003,0003,2003,4003,6003,595142023-112025-032026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 1

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 02:01 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 15/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities44 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIconda4.10.3indirect
PyPIninjaindirect
PyPInumpyindirect
PyPIopencv-python4.5.3.56indirect
PyPIopencv-python-headlessindirect
PyPIpillowindirect
PyPIpillow9.3.0indirect
PyPIpolygon33.0.9.1indirect
PyPIpyclipperindirect
PyPIpython-bidiindirect
PyPIpyyamlindirect
PyPIpyyaml5.4.1indirect
PyPIscikit-imageindirect
PyPIscikit-image0.17.2indirect
PyPIscipyindirect
PyPIshapelyindirect
PyPIshapely1.8.0indirect
PyPItorchindirect
PyPItorch1.13.1indirect
PyPItorchvisionindirect
PyPItorchvision0.10.0indirect
PyPIwandb0.12.9indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:easyocr@1.7.2 pulls in 17 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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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