Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 10:28 UTC

RBLN-SW / optimum-rbln

⚡ A seamless integration of HuggingFace Transformers & Diffusers with RBLN SDK for efficient inference on RBLN NPUs.

PythonApache-2.0★ 19 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Jan 2025View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#diffusers #huggingface #inference #npu #transformers #rbln #rebellions-ai #deep-learning #language-model #atom #rebel #ai-accelerator

RBLN-SW/optimum-rbln holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (49/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rebellions Inc.Organization

25 followers14 public repossince Jan 2026

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	optimum-rbln	0.11.2	29,395	188	11 days ago	atom diffusers inference rbln rebel transformers

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36	Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 389 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	389
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	51

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 ~2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v0.11.3a3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	2

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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

27At Risk

How it's scored

20.4/60	Stars — 19 stars
6.5/25	Forks — 7 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	7
stars	19
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	4
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

74Good

How it's scored

59.6/80	Monthly downloads — 29,395 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	optimum-rbln
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	29,395
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

57Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 33% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	18
top_contributor_share	0.329

Issue & PR responsiveness

57Moderate

How it's scored

19.6/42	Issue resolution — 47% of issues closed
24.2/30	PR acceptance — 557/690 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	557
open_issues	8
closed_issues	7
prs_merged_7d	9
prs_decided_7d	11
prs_merged_30d	37
prs_decided_30d	49
issue_closed_ratio	0.467
closed_unmerged_prs	133
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
10.2/25	Owner reach — 25 followers of RBLN-SW
9.9/25	Track record — 14 public repos, account ~0 yr old

Inputs used

followers	25
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	RBLN-SW
public_repos	14
account_age_days	245

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 11 days ago
20/20	Version history — 188 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	optimum-rbln
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	11

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 20 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.isort])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rbln.ai/software/optimum/optimum_rbln.html
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 12 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	diffusers, huggingface, inference, npu, transformers, rbln, rebellions-ai, deep-learning, language-model, atom, rebel, ai-accelerator
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://docs.rbln.ai/software/optimum/optimum_rbln.html
docs_site	https://docs.rbln.ai/software/optimum/optimum_rbln.html
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 87 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.3

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

Dependency advisories

74Good

How it's scored

20.2/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: torch 2.11.0+cpu (moderate 5.3)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
35.3/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 525 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	149
affected_packages	15
assessed_packages	139
unassessed_packages	1
affected_by_severity	critical 5, high 3, moderate 5, low 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 139 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 93 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.93
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.isort])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 44 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	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.44
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 — 0/354 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	55,159
source_files_sampled	354
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

19GitHub stars

18contributors

389commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

2bus factor

8open 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 ★ / 7 ⇿

0Stars

7Forks

80Releases

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 0Minor 2Patch 7

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10

4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 10:28 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9	Code-Review	Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0	Dangerous-Workflow	dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow 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
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	87 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	torch	`==2.11.0+cpu`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torchaudio	`==2.11.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torchaudio	`==2.11.0+cpu`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torchvision	`==0.26.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torchvision	`==0.26.0+cpu`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torchcodec	`==0.14.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torchcodec	`==0.14.0+cpu`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	accelerate	`>=1.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	transformers	`==5.15.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	diffusers	`==0.38.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	packaging	`>=24.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tokenizers	`==0.22.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 140

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 131 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	accelerate	`1.13.0`	direct
PyPI	diffusers	`0.38.0`	direct
PyPI	packaging	`26.0`	direct
PyPI	tokenizers	`0.22.1`	direct
PyPI	torch	`2.11.0+cpu`	direct
PyPI	torchaudio	`2.11.0+cpu`	direct
PyPI	torchcodec	`0.14.0+cpu`	direct
PyPI	torchvision	`0.26.0+cpu`	direct
PyPI	transformers	`5.15.1`	direct
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.13.3`	indirect
PyPI	aiosignal	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	async-timeout	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`25.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	audioop-lts	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	audioread	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	black	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.2.25`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`46.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	datasets	`4.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	decorator	`5.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	dill	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	fastjsonschema	`2.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.25.0`	indirect
PyPI	fire	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	frozenlist	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	fsspec	`2026.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	gitdb	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	gitpython	`3.1.46`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hf-doc-builder	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	hf-xet	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	huggingface-hub	`1.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.11`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`8.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	joblib	`1.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-core	`5.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	lazy-loader	`0.4`	indirect
PyPI	librosa	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	llvmlite	`0.46.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	mpmath	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	msgpack	`1.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	multiprocess	`0.70.18`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nbformat	`5.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	networkx	`3.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	networkx	`3.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	numba	`0.64.0`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	opencv-python-headless	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`2.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	parameterized	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	pillow	`12.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pooch	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	propcache	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`7.34.0`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`7.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyarrow	`23.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-split	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pytokens	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2026.1.post1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	regex	`2026.2.28`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`14.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.4`	indirect
PyPI	sacremoses	`0.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	safetensors	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	scikit-learn	`1.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	scikit-learn	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.15.3`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	sentencepiece	`0.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`81.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	simphile	`1.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	smmap	`5.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	soundfile	`0.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	soxr	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	standard-aifc	`3.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	standard-chunk	`3.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	standard-sunau	`3.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	sympy	`1.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	threadpoolctl	`3.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`4.67.3`	indirect
PyPI	traitlets	`5.14.3`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	typer	`0.25.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2025.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	xxhash	`3.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 15

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 139 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 15 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
aiohttp	`3.13.3`	indirect	critical	48	`3.14.3`
black	`26.1.0`	indirect	critical	3	`26.3.1`
cryptography	`46.0.5`	indirect	critical	11	`50.0.0`
gitpython	`3.1.46`	indirect	critical	32	`3.1.59`
pillow	`12.1.1`	indirect	critical	36	`12.3.0`
click	`8.3.1`	indirect	high	1	`8.3.3`
msgpack	`1.1.2`	indirect	high	2	`1.2.1`
urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect	high	4	`2.7.0`
torch	`2.11.0+cpu`	direct	moderate	1	`2.13.0`
idna	`3.11`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
requests	`2.32.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`2.33.0`
setuptools	`81.0.0`	indirect	moderate	2	`83.0.0`
pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect	low	2	`2.20.0`
datasets	`4.6.1`	indirect	unknown	1	`5.0.1`

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