Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 09:28 UTC

OpenHCSDev / openhcs

Typed, reproducible high-content microscopy workflows across GUI, Python, CellProfiler, Napari/Fiji, GPU, and local MCP agents.

PythonMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginDesktop applicationCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#bioimage-analysis#cellprofiler#gpu-computing#high-content-screening#image-processing#microscopy#model-context-protocol#napari

OpenHCSDev/openhcs holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (29/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OpenHCSDevOrganization
2 followers11 public repossince Jan 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIopenhcs0.8.5-988 days agomicroscopyimage-processinghigh-content-screeninggpucomputer-vision

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

94Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 3,358 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_year3,358
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year43

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 95 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count95
latest_release_tagv0.8.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases2.9

Community & Adoption

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

29At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

10Critical
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars — 5 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars5
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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_servicesreadthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

54Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.99

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
22.3/30PR acceptance — 58/78 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs58
open_issues0
closed_issues28
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs20
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.

Ownership & stewardship

43Weak
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of OpenHCSDev
9.2/25Track record — 11 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginOpenHCSDev
public_repos11
account_age_days248

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 98 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopenhcs
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://openhcsdev.github.io/openhcs/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbioimage-analysis, cellprofiler, gpu-computing, high-content-screening, image-processing, microscopy, model-context-protocol, napari
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://openhcsdev.github.io/openhcs/
docs_sitehttps://openhcsdev.github.io/openhcs/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — 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
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages104
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:openhcs@0.8.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 104 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

6Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.9/40Legible commit history — 11 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.11
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestspackaging/installers/windows/InstallerLauncher.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

51Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
51.2/55Manageable file sizes — 96/1,376 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes620,472
source_files_sampled1,376
oversized_source_files96

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — demos, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos, examples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

5GitHub stars
3contributors
3,358commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
95releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'openhcs' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 09:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 39
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=1.26.4pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-image>=0.25.2pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn>=1.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyWavelets>=1.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=2.3.1pyproject.toml
PyPIopenpyxl>=3.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIxlsxwriter>=3.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumba>=0.61.0,<0.63pyproject.toml
PyPInumba>=0.61.0pyproject.toml
PyPIskan>=0.13.1pyproject.toml
PyPIthreadpoolctl>=3.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIimageio>=2.37.0pyproject.toml
PyPItifffile>=2025.6.11pyproject.toml
PyPIimagecodecs>=2025.3.30pyproject.toml
PyPIopencv-python-headless>=4.10.0.84,<4.11pyproject.toml
PyPIopencv-python-headless>=4.11.0.86pyproject.toml
PyPIMulti-Template-Matching>=2.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPIroifile>=2024.5.24pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML>=6.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIzarr>=3.0.10pyproject.toml
PyPIome-zarr>=0.12.2pyproject.toml
PyPIdill>=0.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools—pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging>=21.0pyproject.toml
PyPIwatchdog>=6.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIportalocker>=2.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPItomlkit>=0.13.3pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm>=4.66.5pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=48,<49pyproject.toml
PyPIpsutil>=5.9.0pyproject.toml
PyPIzmqruntime>=0.2.20,<0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpycodify>=0.1.3,<0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIobjectstate>=1.1.6,<2pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-introspect>=0.1.13,<0.2pyproject.toml
PyPImetaclass-registry>=0.2.1,<0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIarraybridge>=0.3.3,<0.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpolystore>=0.2.11,<0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpyqt-reactive>=0.3.23,<0.4pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:openhcs@0.8.5 pulls in 104 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with OpenHCSDev/openhcs. Read them side by side →

91computational-cell-analytics/micro-samSegment Anything for MicroscopyExcellent98scikit-image/scikit-imageImage processing in PythonExceptional98NVIDIA/ccclCUDA Core Compute LibrariesExceptional97kornia/kornia🐍 Geometric Computer Vision Library for Spatial AIExceptional96roboflow/supervisionWe write your reusable computer vision tools. 💜Exceptional94cytomining/pycytominerPython package for image-based profilingExceptional

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.