Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 04:37 UTC

TheAcharya / csv2notion-neo

Upload & Merge CSV or JSON Data with Images to Notion Database

PythonMIT★ 43 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#csv #database #notion #cli #command-line-tool #terminal #python #linux #macos #windows #nocode #automation #json #image-uploader #imageuploader #huggingface #huggingface-models #mechine-learning

TheAcharya/csv2notion-neo holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (51/100). It was last updated 54 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The AcharyaOrganization · verified domain

13 followers13 public repossince Apr 2021

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	Tags
PyPI	csv2notion_neo	2.2.1	221	30	54 days ago	csv json notion import merge

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

47Weak

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 54 days ago
8.3/36	Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 116 commits in the last year
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

commits_last_year	116
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	54
active_weeks_last_year	12

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 54 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~32.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	30
latest_release_tag	v2.2.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	54
mean_days_between_releases	32.5

Community & Adoption

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

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

29At Risk

How it's scored

26.3/60	Stars — 43 stars
2.5/25	Forks — 3 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	3
stars	43
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

39Weak

How it's scored

31.3/80	Monthly downloads — 221 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	csv2notion_neo
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	221
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?

69Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
6.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	5
top_contributor_share	0.685

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28/30	PR acceptance — 28/30 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	28
open_issues	0
closed_issues	44
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	2
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

77Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
8.2/25	Owner reach — 13 followers of TheAcharya
19.2/25	Track record — 13 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	13
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	TheAcharya
public_repos	13
account_age_days	1,988

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 54 days ago
20/20	Version history — 30 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	csv2notion_neo
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	54

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black], [tool.isort]), setup.cfg ([flake8])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://tech.theacharya.co
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 18 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	csv, database, notion, cli, command-line-tool, terminal, python, linux, macos, windows, nocode, automation, json, image-uploader, imageuploader, huggingface, huggingface-models, mechine-learning
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://tech.theacharya.co
docs_site	https://tech.theacharya.co
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?

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
2.2/7.5	Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5	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	5.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	20
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:csv2notion_neo@2.2.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 20 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

72Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .cursorrules, AGENT.MD
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://support.airtable.com/llms.txt)
11.7/40	Legible commit history — 22 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://support.airtable.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.22
agent_instruction_files	.cursorrules, AGENT.MD
agent_instruction_max_bytes	25,181

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.black], [tool.isort]), setup.cfg ([flake8])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
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	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
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

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.1/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/29 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	104,207
source_files_sampled	29
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

43GitHub stars

5contributors

116commits, last 12 months

54days since last push

30releases

1bus factor

0open 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 ★ / 3 ⇿

0Stars

3Forks

8Releases

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 1Minor 0Patch 7

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10

5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 04:37 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	4 out of 4 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
0	Code-Review	Found 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
3	Maintained	4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	python-dateutil	`^2.9.0.post0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tqdm	`^4.67.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	emoji	`^2.14.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`^2.32.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	icecream	`^2.1.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	notion-client	`^3.1.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	emoji	`2.15.0`	direct
PyPI	icecream	`2.2.0`	direct
PyPI	notion-client	`3.1.0`	direct
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`4.67.3`	direct
PyPI	anyio	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	asttokens	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	black	`26.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.5.20`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	executing	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.29.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`7.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.19`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`8.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdformat	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyfakefs	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytokens	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-emoji	`2.1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	types-python-dateutil	`2.9.0.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.33.0.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	wemake-python-styleguide	`1.6.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:csv2notion_neo@2.2.1 pulls in 20 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.

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