Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-13 22:42 UTC

OCHA-DAP / hdx-python-utilities

A range of helpful utilities for Python developers including streaming tabular data, date parsing, JSON and YAML handling, dictionary and list utilities

PythonMIT★ 10 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Oct 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

#datetime #hdx #json #logging #utilities #yaml #stream-processing #tabular-data

OCHA-DAP/hdx-python-utilities holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (95/100) and lowest on Security (49/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 67 is calibrated to 78 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-utilities	4.2.1	62,597	270	0 days ago	hdx date datetime dict json library list streaming tabular-data time timezone utilities yaml

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

59Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
8.3/36	Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
14.1/18	Commit volume — 36 commits in the last year
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

commits_last_year	36
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	12

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 96 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~29 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	96
latest_release_tag	4.2.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	29

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

28At Risk

How it's scored

15.5/60	Stars — 10 stars
6.5/25	Forks — 7 forks
6.2/15	Watchers — 14 watchers

Inputs used

forks	7
stars	10
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)

80Excellent

How it's scored

64/80	Monthly downloads — 62,597 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	hdx-python-utilities
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	62,597
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

17Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 95% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.95

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.4/30	PR acceptance — 51/58 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	51
open_issues	0
closed_issues	3
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	7
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

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	4,828

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

Inputs used

packages	hdx-python-utilities
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 — 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
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 12 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 — https://hdx-python-utilities.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 8 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	datetime, hdx, json, logging, utilities, yaml, stream-processing, tabular-data
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://hdx-python-utilities.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
docs_site	https://hdx-python-utilities.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
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?

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

36Weak

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 — 11 out of 12 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 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
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
0.8/7.5	Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
6/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 22 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	3.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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	44
affected_packages	10
assessed_packages	100
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 4, moderate 4, low 1
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 100 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

64Moderate

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.7/40	Legible commit history — 35 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.35
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	4,422

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

45Weak

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
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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	0.01
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/50 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	59,973
source_files_sampled	50
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

10GitHub stars

3contributors

36commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

96releases

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-utilities@4.2.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 7 ⇿

0Stars

7Forks

94Releases

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 9Patch 84

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10

3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-13 22:42 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	11 out of 12 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
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 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
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
1	Maintained	2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
8	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	22 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 16

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	frictionless	`>=5.19.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	openpyxl	`>=3.1.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tableschema-to-template	`>=0.0.13`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	xlrd	`>=2.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	xlwt	`>=1.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ijson	`>=3.5.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	jsonlines	`>=4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	loguru	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyphonetics	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rapidfuzz	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dateutil	`>=2.9.0, <2.9.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ratelimit	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests-file	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ruamel.yaml	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	xlsx2csv	`==0.8.4`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 100

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 83 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	frictionless	`5.19.0`	direct
PyPI	ijson	`3.5.0`	direct
PyPI	jsonlines	`4.0.0`	direct
PyPI	loguru	`0.7.3`	direct
PyPI	openpyxl	`3.1.5`	direct
PyPI	pyphonetics	`0.5.3`	direct
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	direct
PyPI	rapidfuzz	`3.14.5`	direct
PyPI	rapidfuzz	`3.14.6`	direct
PyPI	ratelimit	`2.2.1`	direct
PyPI	requests-file	`3.0.1`	direct
PyPI	ruamel-yaml	`0.19.1`	direct
PyPI	tableschema-to-template	`0.0.13`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	xlrd	`2.0.2`	direct
PyPI	xlsx2csv	`0.8.4`	direct
PyPI	xlwt	`1.3.0`	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	beautifulsoup4	`4.14.3`	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	cydifflib	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	email-validator	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	et-xmlfile	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.20.3`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	html5lib	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	humanize	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.16`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.11`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isodate	`0.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	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	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	pre-commit	`4.5.1`	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	pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-loguru	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-slugify	`8.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`14.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.14.13`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	simpleeval	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	text-unidecode	`1.3`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	typer	`0.21.1`	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	webencodings	`0.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	win32-setctime	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	xlsxwriter	`3.2.9`	indirect

Dependency advisories 10

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 100 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 10 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
simpleeval	`1.0.3`	indirect	critical	2	`1.0.5`
pymdown-extensions	`10.20.1`	indirect	high	6	`11.0.1`
soupsieve	`2.8.3`	indirect	high	8	`2.9.0`
urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect	high	10	`2.8.0`
virtualenv	`20.36.1`	indirect	high	8	`21.7.13`
idna	`3.11`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
mkdocs-material	`9.7.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.7.7`
pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
requests	`2.32.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`2.33.0`
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