Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 01:23 UTC

Rockhopper-Technologies / jinxed

Jinxed Terminal Library

PythonMPL-2.0★ 12 stars⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

Rockhopper-Technologies/jinxed holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (29/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rockhopper TechnologiesOrganization
11 followers9 public repossince Jul 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIjinxed2.1.0-1517 days agoterminalconsoleblessedcurses

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

57Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 17 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume — 32 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year6

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 15 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 17 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~168 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tag2.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release17
mean_days_between_releases168
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?

32At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

17Critical
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars12
watchers1
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 (MPL-2.0)
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)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.856

Issue & PR responsiveness

64Moderate
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
18/30PR acceptance — 6/10 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues1
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs4
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

71Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
7.8/25Owner reach — 11 followers of Rockhopper-Technologies
19.3/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginRockhopper-Technologies
public_repos9
account_age_days3,662
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 17 days ago
20/20Version history — 15 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjinxed
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

42Weak
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
2/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 2 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
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
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_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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.

29At Risk · 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)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/66 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes23,000
source_files_sampled66
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
3contributors
32commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 01:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 commit(s) and 2 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 89

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 89 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIacsc—indirect
PyPIalacritty—indirect
PyPIansi—indirect
PyPIansicon—indirect
PyPIansis—indirect
PyPIarg—indirect
PyPIargs—indirect
PyPIavram—indirect
PyPIbbs—indirect
PyPIbool—indirect
PyPIcbreak—indirect
PyPIcivis—indirect
PyPIcnorm—indirect
PyPIcodegen—indirect
PyPIconhost—indirect
PyPIdomterm—indirect
PyPIdtterm—indirect
PyPIexe—indirect
PyPIfd—indirect
PyPIfilehandle—indirect
PyPIghostty—indirect
PyPIhpterm—indirect
PyPIinfocmp—indirect
PyPIiterm—indirect
PyPIiterm2—indirect
PyPIjquast—indirect
PyPIlinux—indirect
PyPIlubkin—indirect
PyPIminicom—indirect
PyPImintty—indirect
PyPImlterm—indirect
PyPImock—indirect
PyPImvpa—indirect
PyPInatively—indirect
PyPIncurses—indirect
PyPInoqa—indirect
PyPIoverstrikes—indirect
PyPIpangoterm—indirect
PyPIparam—indirect
PyPIpragma—indirect
PyPIpre—indirect
PyPIprintf—indirect
PyPIprogrammatically—indirect
PyPIpy—indirect
PyPIrc—indirect
PyPIregex—indirect
PyPIreimplementation—indirect
PyPIrio—indirect
PyPIrmso—indirect
PyPIrtype—indirect
PyPIrxvt—indirect
PyPIsc—indirect
PyPIsetupterm—indirect
PyPIsgr—indirect
PyPIsmso—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-spelling—indirect
PyPIstderr—indirect
PyPIstdout—indirect
PyPIstterm—indirect
PyPIsyncterm—indirect
PyPItelix—indirect
PyPItermcap—indirect
PyPIterminfo—indirect
PyPItestcase—indirect
PyPItigetflag—indirect
PyPItigetnum—indirect
PyPItigetstr—indirect
PyPItmux—indirect
PyPItoml—indirect
PyPItparm—indirect
PyPItty—indirect
PyPItuple—indirect
PyPItxt—indirect
PyPIunary—indirect
PyPIunicode—indirect
PyPIunittest—indirect
PyPIunix—indirect
PyPIutf—indirect
PyPIvpa—indirect
PyPIvscode—indirect
PyPIvt—indirect
PyPIwezterm—indirect
PyPIwinconsole—indirect
PyPIwt—indirect
PyPIwyse—indirect
PyPIxoff—indirect
PyPIxon—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 Rockhopper-Technologies/jinxed. Read them side by side →

77jquast/blessedBlessed is an easy, practical library for making python terminal appsGood94tui-cs/Terminal.GuiCross Platform Terminal UI toolkit for .NETExceptional94urwid/urwidConsole user interface library for Python (official repo)Exceptional92tqdm/tqdm:zap: A Fast, Extensible Progress Bar for Python and CLIExcellent90wolph/python-progressbarProgressbar 2 - A progress bar for Python 2 and Python 3 - "pip install progressbar2"Excellent80jquast/wcwidthPython library that measures the width of strings in a terminalExcellent

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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