Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 22:16 UTC

RazerM / parver

Parse and manipulate version numbers.

PythonMIT★ 48 stars⑂ 7 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#pep440#version

RazerM/parver holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Frazer McLeanPersonal account
36 followers131 public repossince Jan 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIparver1.0-957 days agoparsepep440version

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
16.9/18Commit volume — 76 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year76
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

24At Risk
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 3 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,117 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~416 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag0.3.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,117
mean_days_between_releases416
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

34At Risk
How it's scored
27.1/60Stars — 48 stars
6.5/25Forks — 7 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars48
watchers2
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

27At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 89% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.894

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
16.7/30PR acceptance — 54/97 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs54
open_issues0
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs43
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.3/25Owner reach — 36 followers of RazerM
25/25Track record — 131 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers36
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginRazerM
public_repos131
account_age_days5,294
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 57 days ago
20/20Version history — 9 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesparver
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish57

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspep440, version
has_wikiyes
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?

71Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

71Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

97Exceptional
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/parver/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesnoxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/parver/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

78Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/parver/py.typed)
51.3/55Manageable file sizes — 1/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes82,597
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

48GitHub stars
4contributors
76commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 22:16 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
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIargcomplete3.6.3indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.4.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.4.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcolorlog6.10.1indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.0indirect
PyPIdependency-groups1.3.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIdoc82.0.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.0indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIhatchling—indirect
PyPIhumanize4.15.0indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.152.7indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInox2026.4.10indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIparver1.0.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpretend1.0.9indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.3.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrestructuredtext-lint2.0.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.13indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints3.10.5indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-inline-tabs2025.12.21.14indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-towncrier0.5.0a0indirect
PyPIstevedore5.7.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItowncrier25.8.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.3.3indirect
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 RazerM/parver. Read them side by side →

69ludeeus/awesomeversionOne version package to rule them all, One version package to find them, One version package to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.Good47mbarkhau/bumpverBumpVer: Automatic VersioningWeak98aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescriptPowertools for AWS is a developer toolkit to implement Serverless best practices and increase developer velocity.Exceptional93clearml/clearmlClearML - Auto-Magical CI/CD to streamline your AI workload. Experiment Management, Data Management, Pipeline, Orchestration, Scheduling & Serving in one MLOps/LLMOps solutionExceptional92MikePopoloski/slangSystemVerilog compiler and language servicesExcellent91callowayproject/bump-my-versionA small command line tool to simplify releasing software by updating all version strings in your source code by the correct increment and optionally commit and tag the changes.Excellent

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.