Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 20:02 UTC

OCA / l10n-brazil

Localização brasileira oficial do Odoo.

Python · HTMLAGPL-3.0★ 346 stars⑂ 316 forkssince Aug 2013View on GitHub ↗
#odoo#nfe#oca#brasil#cte#nfse#sped#esocial

OCA/l10n-brazil holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (29/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
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.

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

Ownership

Odoo Community AssociationOrganization
4,819 followers261 public repossince May 2014

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,311 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,311
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

78Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

72Good
How it's scored
41.2/60Stars — 346 stars
20.8/25Forks — 316 forks
10.5/15Watchers — 80 watchers
Inputs used
forks316
stars346
watchers80
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 (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

85Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

77Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 23% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 68 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled68
top_contributor_share0.227

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
40.9/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
22/30PR acceptance — 2,815/3,839 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs2,815
open_issues19
closed_issues729
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.975
closed_unmerged_prs1,024
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach — 4,819 followers of OCA
25/25Track record — 261 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers4,819
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginOCA
public_repos261
account_age_days4,445
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .pylintrc, .ruff.toml
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.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_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://oca.github.io/repo-maintainer-conf/teams.html#local-brazil-maintainers
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsodoo, nfe, oca, brasil, cte, nfse, sped, esocial
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://oca.github.io/repo-maintainer-conf/teams.html#local-brazil-maintainers
docs_sitehttps://oca.github.io/repo-maintainer-conf/teams.html#local-brazil-maintainers
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
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 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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.

29At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .pylintrc, .ruff.toml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 8/573 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes232,924
source_files_sampled573
oversized_source_files8

Key facts

346GitHub stars
68contributors
1,311commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
3bus factor
19open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 20:02 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
4Code-ReviewFound 9/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 73

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 73 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbrazilcep—indirect
PyPIbrazilfiscalreport—indirect
PyPIemail-validator—indirect
PyPIerpbrasil-assinatura—indirect
PyPIerpbrasil-base—indirect
PyPIerpbrasil-edoc—indirect
PyPIerpbrasil-transmissao—indirect
PyPInfelib—indirect
PyPInum2words—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-account—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-account-due-list—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-account-fleet—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-account-nfe—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-account-payment-brcobranca—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-account-payment-order—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-account-withholding—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-base—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-base-l10n-br-compat—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-cnab-structure—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-cnpj-search—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-coa—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-coa-generic—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-coa-simple—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-contract—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-crm—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-crm-cnpj-search—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-cte—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-cte-spec—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-currency-rate-update—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-delivery—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-delivery-nfe—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-fiscal—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-fiscal-certificate—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-fiscal-closing—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-fiscal-dfe—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-fiscal-edi—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-fiscal-notification—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-fiscal-subsequent-document—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-hr—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-hr-contract—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-ie-search—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-mdfe—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-mdfe-spec—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-mis-report—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-nfe—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-nfe-spec—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-nfse—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-nfse-focus—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-portal—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-product-contract—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-purchase—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-purchase-request—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-purchase-stock—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-resource—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-sale—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-sale-commission—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-sale-invoice-plan—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-sale-stock—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-setup-tests—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-sped-base—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-sped-ecd—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-stock—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-stock-account—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-stock-account-report—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-l10n-br-zip—indirect
PyPIodoo-addon-spec-driven-model—indirect
PyPIodoo-test-helper—indirect
PyPIphonenumbers—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsignxml3.2.2indirect
PyPIworkalendar—indirect
PyPIxmldiff—indirect
PyPIxsdata—indirect
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 OCA/l10n-brazil. Read them side by side →

60mendesalexandre/php-nfse-nacionalSDK PHP framework-agnostic pra NFS-e Nacional (Padrão Brasileiro SEFIN) — emissão DPS, consulta, cancelamento e DANFSE (NT 008/2026). PHP 8.1+, PSR-3/PSR-18.Moderate86nfe/client-nodejsSDK oficial da NFE.io para Node.js (TypeScript, zero dependências) para emitir NFS-e — nota fiscal de serviço eletrônica — e consultar CNPJ e CEP via API. Documentos fiscais do Brasil com async/await nativo.Excellent83nfephp-org/sped-nfeAPI para geração e comunicação das NFe com as SEFAZ autorizadorasExcellent81nfets/nfetstypescript libraries for Brazilian's SEFAZ standardsExcellent77nfe/client-phpSDK oficial da NFE.io para PHP 8.2+ (zero dependências) para emitir NFS-e — nota fiscal de serviço eletrônica — e consultar CNPJ e CEP via API. Documentos fiscais do Brasil.Good69Hercules-NET/ZeusFiscalA Principal Biblioteca em C# para Emissão e Impressão de NFe, NFCe, MDF-e e CT-eGood

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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