Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-15 01:42 UTC

OCHA-DAP / hdx-python-api

Python API for interacting with the HDX Data Portal

PythonMIT★ 96 stars⑂ 20 forkssince May 2016View on GitHub ↗

OCHA-DAP/hdx-python-api holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (95/100) and lowest on Security (51/100). 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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

UN-OCHA Humanitarian Data Exchange ProjectOrganization

275 followers556 public repossince Jul 2013

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	hdx-python-api	6.7.2	8,879	459	0 days ago	api ckan hdx humanitarian-data-exchange

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

65Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
10.4/36	Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18	Commit volume — 24 commits in the last year
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

commits_last_year	24
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	15

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 ~29.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	6.7.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	29.3

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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

49Weak

How it's scored

32.1/60	Stars — 96 stars
10.7/25	Forks — 20 forks
6.2/15	Watchers — 14 watchers

Inputs used

forks	20
stars	96
watchers	14
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	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	coveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

66Good

How it's scored

52.6/80	Monthly downloads — 8,879 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	hdx-python-api
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	8,879
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?

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

26At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
6.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	5
top_contributor_share	0.982

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.3/30	PR acceptance — 78/89 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	78
open_issues	0
closed_issues	28
prs_merged_7d	4
prs_decided_7d	4
prs_merged_30d	5
prs_decided_30d	5
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	11
first_time_authors_30d	2
first_time_prs_merged_30d	2
first_time_prs_decided_30d	2

Ownership & stewardship

72Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
17.5/25	Owner reach — 275 followers of OCHA-DAP
25/25	Track record — 556 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	275
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	OCHA-DAP
public_repos	556
account_age_days	4,829

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 — 459 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	hdx-python-api
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

95Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 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
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://data.humdata.org
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ckan-api, hdx, hdx-api
has_wiki	yes
homepage	http://data.humdata.org
docs_site	http://data.humdata.org
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?

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

45Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 21 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
4.5/7.5	Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 25 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	4.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

73Good

How it's scored

19.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: requests 2.32.5 (moderate 5.5)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
35.2/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 203 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	50
affected_packages	12
assessed_packages	115
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 4, moderate 6, low 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 115 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

71Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.1/40	Legible commit history — 49 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.49
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	3,157

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak

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 — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

51Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
51.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 4/59 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	100,697
source_files_sampled	59
oversized_source_files	4

Key facts

96GitHub stars

5contributors

24commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

0open 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:hdx-python-api@6.7.2; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 20 ⇿

0Stars

20Forks

98Releases

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 1Minor 10Patch 87

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10

4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-15 01:42 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9	CI-Tests	21 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
6	Maintained	8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	25 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	ckanapi	`>=4.11`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	defopt	`>=7.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	email_validator	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	hdx-python-country	`>=4.2.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	hdx-python-utilities	`>=4.2.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	makefun	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`—`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 115

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 108 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	ckanapi	`4.11`	direct
PyPI	defopt	`7.0.0`	direct
PyPI	email-validator	`2.3.0`	direct
PyPI	hdx-python-country	`4.2.2`	direct
PyPI	hdx-python-utilities	`4.2.0`	direct
PyPI	makefun	`1.16.0`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	direct
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	astdoc	`1.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`25.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	backrefs	`6.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	chardet	`7.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.13.2`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	docopt	`0.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	et-xmlfile	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.20.3`	indirect
PyPI	frictionless	`5.19.0`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	google-auth	`2.47.0`	indirect
PyPI	google-auth-oauthlib	`1.2.4`	indirect
PyPI	gspread	`6.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	humanize	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.16`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.11`	indirect
PyPI	ijson	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isodate	`0.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jsonlines	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	loguru	`0.7.3`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	marko	`2.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkapi	`4.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-get-deps	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	oauthlib	`3.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	openpyxl	`3.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.0`	indirect
PyPI	paginate	`0.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	petl	`1.7.17`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pockets	`0.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1	`0.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1-modules	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.12.5`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.41.5`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`10.20.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyphonetics	`0.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-check	`2.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-slugify	`8.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	rapidfuzz	`3.14.5`	indirect
PyPI	rapidfuzz	`3.14.6`	indirect
PyPI	ratelimit	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests-file	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests-oauthlib	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`14.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	rsa	`4.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	ruamel-yaml	`0.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.14.14`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`80.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	simpleeval	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	simplejson	`3.20.2`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-napoleon	`0.7`	indirect
PyPI	tableschema-to-template	`0.0.13`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	tenacity	`9.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	text-unidecode	`1.3`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	typer	`0.21.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	unidecode	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	validators	`0.35.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.36.1`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	win32-setctime	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	xlrd	`2.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	xlsx2csv	`0.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	xlsxwriter	`3.2.9`	indirect
PyPI	xlwt	`1.3.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 12

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 115 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 12 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
simpleeval	`1.0.3`	indirect	critical	2	`1.0.5`
pyasn1	`0.6.2`	indirect	high	8	`0.6.4`
pymdown-extensions	`10.20.1`	indirect	high	6	`11.0.1`
urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect	high	10	`2.8.0`
virtualenv	`20.36.1`	indirect	high	8	`21.7.13`
requests	`2.32.5`	direct	moderate	2	`2.33.0`
idna	`3.11`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
mkdocs-material	`9.7.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.7.7`
oauthlib	`3.3.1`	indirect	moderate	4	`4.0.0`
pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
setuptools	`80.10.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`83.0.0`
pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect	low	2	`2.20.0`

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