Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-02 00:04 UTC

JasonPuglisi / e-note-ion

Automation for Vestaboard displays — with emotion

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#cron #docker #home-automation #python #scheduler #split-flap #vestaboard

JasonPuglisi/e-note-ion holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jason PuglisiPersonal account

13 followers20 public repossince Jul 2013@makenotion

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	e-note-ion	2.2.0	2,261	73	0 days ago	vestaboard note flagship automation schedule scheduling

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
12.5/36	Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 334 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	334
human_commit_share	0.92
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	18

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~2.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v2.2.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	2.8

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?

47Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	0
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	1
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

56Moderate

How it's scored

44.7/80	Monthly downloads — 2,261 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	e-note-ion
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,261
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good

How it's scored

39.3/42	Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
28.2/30	PR acceptance — 333/354 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	333
open_issues	18
closed_issues	257
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	24
prs_decided_30d	24
issue_closed_ratio	0.935
closed_unmerged_prs	21
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

50Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8.2/25	Owner reach — 13 followers of JasonPuglisi
21.6/25	Track record — 20 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	13
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	JasonPuglisi
public_repos	20
account_age_days	4,816

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 73 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	e-note-ion
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/JasonPuglisi/e-note-ion
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cron, docker, home-automation, python, scheduler, split-flap, vestaboard
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://github.com/JasonPuglisi/e-note-ion
docs_site	https://github.com/JasonPuglisi/e-note-ion
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

81Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

76Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	7.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	72
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 72 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

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 92 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	35,532

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

70Good

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 92 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.92
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.08

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/92 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	113,797
source_files_sampled	92
oversized_source_files	2

Key facts

0GitHub stars

1contributors

334commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

18open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

deps.dev does not index pypi:e-note-ion@2.2.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10

7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-02 00:04 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
10	Maintained	27 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
9	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	apscheduler	`>=3.11.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	argon2-cffi	`>=25.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	caldav	`>=3.2.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	icalendar	`>=7.1.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Pillow	`>=12.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	recurring-ical-events	`>=3.8.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.34.2`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 72

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 65 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	apscheduler	`3.11.3`	direct
PyPI	argon2-cffi	`25.1.0`	direct
PyPI	caldav	`3.3.1`	direct
PyPI	icalendar	`7.3.0`	direct
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	direct
PyPI	recurring-ical-events	`3.8.2`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	argon2-cffi-bindings	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	bandit	`1.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	boolean-py	`5.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachecontrol	`0.14.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.16.2`	indirect
PyPI	cyclonedx-python-lib	`11.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	e-note-ion	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`4.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	icalendar-searcher	`1.0.6`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.20`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.20`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jh2	`5.0.15`	indirect
PyPI	license-expression	`30.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	msgpack	`1.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	niquests	`3.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	packageurl-python	`0.17.6`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pip	`26.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	pip-api	`0.0.35`	indirect
PyPI	pip-audit	`2.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	pip-requirements-parser	`32.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.12.2`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	py-serializable	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.414`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	qh3	`2.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.10`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	stevedore	`5.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.4`	indirect
PyPI	tzlocal	`5.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3-future	`2.25.901`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.14.3`	indirect
PyPI	wassima	`2.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	x-wr-timezone	`2.0.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 72 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 v0.34.0 — 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