Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-02 03:18 UTC

OpenVoiceOS / ovos-workshop

frameworks, templates and patches for the OpenVoiceOS universe

PythonApache-2.0★ 6 stars⑂ 17 forkssince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

OpenVoiceOS/ovos-workshop holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OpenVoiceOSOrganization
795 followers385 public repossince Oct 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIovos-workshop8.0.058,873422326 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 391 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year391
human_commit_share0.41
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag9.8.10a1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.1
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars — 6 stars
10/25Forks — 17 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars6
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63.6/80Monthly downloads — 58,873 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesovos-workshop
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads58,873
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
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.9
How it's scored
29.6/42Issue resolution — 70% of issues closed
21/30PR acceptance — 441/629 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs441
open_issues13
closed_issues31
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d15
prs_decided_30d15
issue_closed_ratio0.705
closed_unmerged_prs188
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
20.9/25Owner reach — 795 followers of OpenVoiceOS
25/25Track record — 385 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers795
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginOpenVoiceOS
public_repos385
account_age_days2,190
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 326 days ago
20/20Version history — 422 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesovos-workshop
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish326

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 11 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsopenvoiceos
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
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 — 10 out of 10 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
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no 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 5 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
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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_packages45
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:ovos-workshop@8.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 45 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
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26/40Legible commit history — 20 of 41 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.488
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,516
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 17 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.17
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 2/98 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes164,596
source_files_sampled98
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

6GitHub stars
16contributors
391commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
13open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 17 ⇿
0Stars
17Forks
55Releases

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.

0481216201712021-112024-042026-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 03:18 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 8/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIovos-utils>= 0.13.3a2,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIovos_bus_client>=2.11.2a1,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIovos-gui-api-client>=0.1.0,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIovos-config>=0.0.12,<4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIovos-spec-tools>=1.11.0a1pyproject.toml
PyPIovos-yes-no-plugin>=0.3.0,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIovos-option-matcher-fuzzy-plugin>=0.0.1,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIovos-number-parser>=0.0.1,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIovos-plugin-manager>=2.4.0a1,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrapidfuzz—pyproject.toml
PyPIlangcodes—pyproject.toml
PyPIpadacioso>=2.2.1a1,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIovos-bus-client—direct
PyPIovos-config—direct
PyPIovos-gui-api-client—direct
PyPIovos-number-parser—direct
PyPIovos-option-matcher-fuzzy-plugin—direct
PyPIovos-plugin-manager—direct
PyPIovos-spec-tools—direct
PyPIovos-utils—direct
PyPIovos-yes-no-plugin—direct
PyPIpadacioso—direct
PyPIovos-adapt-parser—indirect
PyPIovos-core—indirect
PyPIovos-workshop—indirect
PyPIovoscope—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:ovos-workshop@8.0.0 pulls in 45 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.

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.