Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 19:44 UTC

SchematicHQ / schematic-python

A Python SDK for the Schematic API

PythonMIT★ 3 stars⑂ 0 forkssince May 2024View on GitHub ↗

SchematicHQ/schematic-python holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (50/100). 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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SchematicOrganization · verified domain

18 followers24 public repossince Jun 2023

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
PyPI	schematichq	1.3.6	199,825	35	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
16.6/36	Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits
15.7/18	Commit volume — 55 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	55
human_commit_share	0.53
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	24

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 40 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~7.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	40
latest_release_tag	1.3.6
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	7.5

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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

9Critical

How it's scored

4.9/60	Stars — 3 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
3.9/15	Watchers — 6 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	3
watchers	6
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

88Excellent

How it's scored

70.7/80	Monthly downloads — 199,825 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	schematichq
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	199,825
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?

80Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 29% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.294

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
23.7/30	PR acceptance — 87/110 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	87
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	6
prs_decided_7d	8
prs_merged_30d	9
prs_decided_30d	11
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	23
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

76Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
9.2/25	Owner reach — 18 followers of SchematicHQ
16.7/25	Track record — 24 public repos, account ~3 yr old

Inputs used

followers	18
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	SchematicHQ
public_repos	24
account_age_days	1,191

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 35 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	schematichq
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 2 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	built-with-fern, python-sdk
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
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?

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
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
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5.5

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	2
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	41
unassessed_packages	7
affected_by_severity	moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 41 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.schematichq.com/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 43 of 53 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.schematichq.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.811
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	2,394

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — src/schematic/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 5 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	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/schematic/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.05
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

81Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/schematic/py.typed)
53.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 23/1,023 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	415,845
source_files_sampled	1,023
oversized_source_files	23

Key facts

3GitHub stars

8contributors

55commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

40releases

2bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'schematichq' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
pypi download figures for schematichq carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)
deps.dev does not index pypi:schematichq@1.3.6; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10

5.5aggregate

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 19:43 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
9	CI-Tests	29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	26 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not 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
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	httpx	`>=0.21.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`>= 1.9.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic-core	`>=2.18.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`>= 4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	websockets	`>=10.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	wasmtime	`>=19.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx-aiohttp	`>=0.1.8`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 48

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	httpx	`—`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	direct
PyPI	httpx-aiohttp	`0.1.12`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.5`	direct
PyPI	pydantic-core	`—`	direct
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.5`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	wasmtime	`48.0.0`	direct
PyPI	websockets	`16.1.1`	direct
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	aiohttp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.14.3`	indirect
PyPI	aiosignal	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	async-timeout	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	frozenlist	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.19`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	propcache	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`7.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`0.23.8`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	redis	`—`	indirect
PyPI	redis	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.11.5`	indirect
PyPI	schematichq	`—`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	types-python-dateutil	`2.9.0.20260807`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.24.5`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 41 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pytest	`7.4.4`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`

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