Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-22 01:34 UTC

SanPen / VeraGrid

VeraGrid, a cross-platform power systems software written in Python with user interface, used in academia and industry.

PythonMPL-2.0★ 633 stars⑂ 145 forkssince Jan 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

SanPen/VeraGrid holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Security (30/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Santiago Peñate VeraPersonal account
192 followers26 public repossince Jul 2015eRoots

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
PyPIVeraGrid6.7.195,6781841 day agopowersystemsplanning
PyPIVeraGridMcp6.7.193,018331 day agopowersystemsplanning
PyPIVeraGridEngine6.7.1910,9321861 day agopowersystemsplanning
PyPIVeraGridServer6.7.193,8621841 day agopowersystemsplanning

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 6 days ago
28.4/36Commit cadence — 41/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 115 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year115
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year41
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 35 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 28 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~69.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tag6.7.0-removed-matplotlib
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release28
mean_days_between_releases69.3

Community & Adoption

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

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.4/60Stars — 633 stars
18/25Forks — 145 forks
8.7/15Watchers — 37 watchers
Inputs used
forks145
stars633
watchers37
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io, travis-ci.org, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
58.3/80Monthly downloads — 23,490 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesVeraGrid, VeraGridMcp, VeraGridEngine, VeraGridServer
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads23,490
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 33 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.707
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
22.7/30PR acceptance — 121/160 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs121
open_issues14
closed_issues301
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.956
closed_unmerged_prs39
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.4/25Owner reach — 192 followers of SanPen
22.4/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers192
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginSanPen
public_repos26
account_age_days4,111
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 4 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 186 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesVeraGrid, VeraGridMcp, VeraGridEngine, VeraGridServer
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .pylintrc
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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://eroots.tech/veragrid-gslv
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 18 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, powerflow, electrical-engineering, electrical, helm, newton-raphson, latin-hypercube, monte-carlo-simulation, cim, comon-information-model, stochastic-power-flow, multi-terminal, acdc, optimization, power-systems, emt, rms, small-signal-stability
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://eroots.tech/veragrid-gslv
docs_sitehttps://eroots.tech/veragrid-gslv
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsdoc/requirements.txt, requirements.txt, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno

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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.3/40Legible commit history — 6 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.062
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — doc/Makefile, src/tests/data/grids/CGMES_3_0/Relicap/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .pylintrc
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdoc/Makefile, src/tests/data/grids/CGMES_3_0/Relicap/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.2/55Manageable file sizes — 193/3,813 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes1,690,878
source_files_sampled3,813
oversized_source_files193
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

633GitHub stars
33contributors
115commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
14open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'VeraGrid-doc-meta' from its registry
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 145 ⇿
0Stars
145Forks
34Releases

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.

025507510012515014352016-032021-072026-10
Major 1Minor 13Patch 16

Each point covers 10 days.

All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIautograd—indirect
PyPIbrotli—indirect
PyPIcbcbox—indirect
PyPIchardet—indirect
PyPIcryptography—indirect
PyPIfastapi—indirect
PyPIfastparquet—indirect
PyPIfmpy—indirect
PyPIgeopy—indirect
PyPIh11—indirect
PyPIh5py—indirect
PyPIhighspy—indirect
PyPIidna—indirect
PyPIlinkify-it-py—indirect
PyPIllvmlite—indirect
PyPImcp—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPInetworkx—indirect
PyPInumba—indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPIopencv-python—indirect
PyPIopenpyxl—indirect
PyPIpackaging—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpsycopg—indirect
PyPIpulp—indirect
PyPIpvlib—indirect
PyPIpyarrow—indirect
PyPIpygments—indirect
PyPIpymoo—indirect
PyPIpyproj—indirect
PyPIpyside6—indirect
PyPIpytablewriter—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIrdflib—indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIscikit-learn—indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPItables—indirect
PyPIurllib3—indirect
PyPIuvicorn—indirect
PyPIveragridengine—indirect
PyPIwebsockets—indirect
PyPIwindpowerlib—indirect
PyPIxlrd—indirect
PyPIxlwt—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.

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.