Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-08 21:53 UTC

Tachion-Oy / roboz

Python framework for typed LLM agents with conditional tool chaining.

PythonApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#agent-framework#agents#ai-agents#llm#python#tool-calling#typed-python#workflow#multi-agent#openai-compatible#tool-chaining

Tachion-Oy/roboz holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated today. 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

TachionOrganization
0 followers2 public repossince Aug 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIroboz0.5.02,500253 days agoagent-frameworkagentsai-agentsllmmulti-agentopenai-compatiblepythontool-callingtool-chainingtypingworkflows

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

58Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 353 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year353
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagroboz-v0.6.1a1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases1.7

Community & Adoption

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

39Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

57Moderate
How it's scored
45.3/80Monthly downloads — 2,500 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesroboz
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,500
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?

48Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
29.4/30PR acceptance — 98/100 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs98
open_issues3
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d30
prs_decided_7d30
prs_merged_30d49
prs_decided_30d50
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

34At Risk
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of Tachion-Oy
3.7/25Track record — 2 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginTachion-Oy
public_repos2
account_age_days39

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 25 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesroboz
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://tachion.fi/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 11 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent-framework, agents, ai-agents, llm, python, tool-calling, typed-python, workflow, multi-agent, openai-compatible, tool-chaining
has_wikino
homepagehttps://tachion.fi/
docs_sitehttps://tachion.fi/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

62Moderate
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 — 11 out of 11 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 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages23
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:roboz@0.5.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 23 packages. 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.

77Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

71Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.4/40Legible commit history — 45 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.495
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,348

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — pyrightconfig.json, src/roboz/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspyrightconfig.json, src/roboz/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json, src/roboz/py.typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 2/379 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes73,284
source_files_sampled379
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

0GitHub stars
1contributors
353commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-10-08 21:53 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-Tests11 out of 11 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 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcryptography>=50.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPIimapclient>=4.1,<5pyproject.toml
PyPIopenai>=2.8.1,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.12.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpygments>=2.20.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dotenv>=1.2.2pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=14.2.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcryptography50.0.1direct
PyPIimapclient4.1.0direct
PyPIopenai3.22.1direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.5direct
PyPIpygments2.21.0direct
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.3direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIcheck-wheel-contents0.6.3indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.12.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.23indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.13.1indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhttpx22.13.1indirect
PyPIhttpx2-jsfetch1.0indirect
PyPIid1.6.1indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.6.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjiter0.16.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0indirect
PyPInh30.3.7indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.414indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer45.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIroboz0.7.0a1indirect
PyPIruff0.16.9indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItwine7.0.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIwheel-filename1.4.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:roboz@0.5.0 pulls in 23 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Tachion-Oy/roboz. Read them side by side →

100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional99microsoft/agent-frameworkA framework for building, orchestrating and deploying AI agents and multi-agent workflows with support for Python and .NET.Exceptional99ag2ai/ag2AG2 (formerly AutoGen): The Open-Source AgentOS.Join us at: https://discord.gg/sNGSwQME3xExceptional99awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional99google/adk-pythonAn open-source, code-first Python toolkit for building, evaluating, and deploying sophisticated AI agents with flexibility and control.Exceptional98langchain-ai/langchainThe agent engineering platform.Exceptional

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.