Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 02:30 UTC

TheKevJames / coveralls-python

Show coverage stats online via coveralls.io

PythonMIT★ 569 stars⑂ 184 forkssince Feb 2013View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#coveralls #coverage #pytest #nosetests #python

TheKevJames/coveralls-python holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Security (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Kevin JamesPersonal account

83 followers35 public repossince Jan 2013AI @dialpad (@talkiq)

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	coveralls	4.1.0	889,266	48	195 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

96Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.8/36	Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 222 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	222
human_commit_share	0.39
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	46

Release discipline

62Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 32 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 195 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~208.2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	32
latest_release_tag	4.1.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	195
mean_days_between_releases	208.2

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?

72Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

68Good

How it's scored

44.7/60	Stars — 569 stars
18.9/25	Forks — 184 forks
3.9/15	Watchers — 6 watchers

Inputs used

forks	184
stars	569
watchers	6
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

57Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	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	13
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

99Exceptional

How it's scored

79.3/80	Monthly downloads — 889,266 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	coveralls
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	889,266
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?

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 56 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	56
top_contributor_share	0.517

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good

How it's scored

41.7/42	Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
24.9/30	PR acceptance — 512/616 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	512
open_issues	1
closed_issues	176
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.994
closed_unmerged_prs	104
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

59Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.8/25	Owner reach — 83 followers of TheKevJames
23.3/25	Track record — 35 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	83
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	TheKevJames
public_repos	35
account_age_days	4,980

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

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 195 days ago
20/20	Version history — 48 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	coveralls
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	195

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 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	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — coveralls-python.readthedocs.io
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	coveralls, coverage, pytest, nosetests, python
has_wiki	no
homepage	coveralls-python.readthedocs.io
docs_site	coveralls-python.readthedocs.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?

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

29At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

2 contributor organization profilesRussia1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 12 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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.8
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	29
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	58

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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	13
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:coveralls@4.1.0 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.

56Moderate · 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 — 39 of 39 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 61 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	uv.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	0.61

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/43 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	16,284
source_files_sampled	43
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — example

Inputs used

example_dirs	example
has_mcp_signal	no
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

569GitHub stars

56contributors

222commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

32releases

1bus factor

1open 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 ★ / 184 ⇿

0Stars

184Forks

32Releases

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 3Minor 16Patch 12

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10

5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 02:30 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
10	CI-Tests	23 out of 23 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 12 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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow 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
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	coverage	`(>=6.3,<8.0)`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`(>=2.30.0,<3.0.0)`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli	`(>=1.1.0)`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typer	`(>=0.12.0,<1.0.0)`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`(>=2.0.0,<3.0.0)`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.4`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	direct
PyPI	typer	`0.27.1`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	direct
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	astpretty	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	astroid	`4.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coveralls	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	dill	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`7.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-broken-line	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-complicated-walrus	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-import-restrictions	`2.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-requirements	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`9.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.8`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pylint	`4.0.8`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	responses	`0.26.3`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260906`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:coveralls@4.1.0 pulls in 13 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