Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 03:26 UTC

TagStudioDev / TagStudio

A User-Focused Photo & File Management System

PythonGPL-3.0★ 7,153 stars⑂ 464 forkssince Apr 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindDesktop applicationLibraryhow this is determined

#file-manager #organizer #photo-gallery #photo-organizer #metadata #tagger #tagging #tags #document-management-system

TagStudioDev/TagStudio holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TagStudioOrganization

134 followers1 public reposince Apr 2024

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	TagStudio	9.1.1	56	2	735 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

84Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 5 days ago
20.1/36	Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 284 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	284
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	5
active_weeks_last_year	29

Release discipline

83Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 24 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 12 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~55.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	24
latest_release_tag	v9.6.3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	12
mean_days_between_releases	55.8

Community & Adoption

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

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

92Excellent

How it's scored

60/60	Stars — 7,153 stars
22.2/25	Forks — 464 forks
10.1/15	Watchers — 66 watchers

Inputs used

forks	464
stars	7,153
watchers	66
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

77Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	2
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

29At Risk

How it's scored

23.4/80	Monthly downloads — 56 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	TagStudio
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	56
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?

49Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 74 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	74
top_contributor_share	0.524

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate

How it's scored

26.5/42	Issue resolution — 63% of issues closed
23.5/30	PR acceptance — 536/683 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	536
open_issues	253
closed_issues	435
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	17
prs_decided_30d	20
issue_closed_ratio	0.632
closed_unmerged_prs	147
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

52Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
15.3/25	Owner reach — 134 followers of TagStudioDev
6.9/25	Track record — 1 public repos, account ~2 yr old

Inputs used

followers	134
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	TagStudioDev
public_repos	1
account_age_days	852

Package maintenance

41Weak

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 735 days ago
12/20	Version history — 2 published versions
0/20	Not deprecated — TagStudio: deprecated/yanked on the registry

Inputs used

packages	TagStudio
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	yes
min_days_since_publish	735

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.tagstud.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 9 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	file-manager, organizer, photo-gallery, photo-organizer, metadata, tagger, tagging, tags, document-management-system
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://docs.tagstud.io/
docs_site	https://docs.tagstud.io/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 19 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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5

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

Dependency advisories

56Moderate

How it's scored

6.7/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: pillow 10.3.0 (critical 9.1), pillow-heif 0.16.0 (critical 9.1), ujson 5.9.0 (high 7.5)
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
24.4/40	No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 197 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	44
affected_packages	3
assessed_packages	13
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 2, high 1
direct_affected_packages	3

Matched the pypi:TagStudio@9.1.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 13 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.99
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Nix
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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	yes
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 4/179 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	98,598
source_files_sampled	179
oversized_source_files	4

Key facts

7,153GitHub stars

74contributors

284commits, last 12 months

5days since last push

24releases

1bus factor

253open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 464 ⇿

0Stars

464Forks

24Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 5Patch 15

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10

5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 03:26 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 19 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
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 26

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	audioop-lts	`~=0.2.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	chardet	`~=5.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ffmpeg-python	`~=0.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	humanfriendly	`==10.*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	mutagen	`~=1.47`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	numpy	`~=2.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opencv_python	`~=4.11`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Pillow	`>=10.2,<12`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pillow-heif	`~=1.5.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pillow-jxl-plugin	`~=1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	py7zr	`~=1.1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`~=2.10`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydub	`~=0.25`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	PySide6	`==6.11.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rarfile	`==4.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rawpy	`~=0.27`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Send2Trash	`>=1.8,<3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	SQLAlchemy	`~=2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	srctools	`~=2.6`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	structlog	`~=25.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	toml	`~=0.10`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`~=4.13`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ujson	`~=5.10`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	wcmatch	`==10.*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`~=2.31.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	semver	`~=3.0.4`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 38

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 26 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	audioop-lts	`—`	direct
PyPI	chardet	`—`	direct
PyPI	ffmpeg-python	`—`	direct
PyPI	humanfriendly	`—`	direct
PyPI	mutagen	`—`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`—`	direct
PyPI	opencv-python	`—`	direct
PyPI	pillow	`—`	direct
PyPI	pillow-heif	`—`	direct
PyPI	pillow-jxl-plugin	`—`	direct
PyPI	py7zr	`—`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	direct
PyPI	pydub	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyside6	`6.11.2`	direct
PyPI	rarfile	`4.2`	direct
PyPI	rawpy	`—`	direct
PyPI	requests	`—`	direct
PyPI	semver	`—`	direct
PyPI	send2trash	`—`	direct
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`—`	direct
PyPI	srctools	`—`	direct
PyPI	structlog	`—`	direct
PyPI	toml	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
PyPI	ujson	`—`	direct
PyPI	wcmatch	`—`	direct
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-redirects	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-qt	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	reuse	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.17`	indirect
PyPI	syrupy	`5.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 3

Installing pypi:TagStudio@9.1.1 pulls in 13 packages, direct and transitive: 3 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pillow	`10.3.0`	direct	critical	34	`12.3.0`
pillow-heif	`0.16.0`	direct	critical	2	`1.3.0`
ujson	`5.9.0`	direct	high	8	`5.13.0`

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