Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 18:38 UTC

TheKevJames / coveralls-python

Show coverage stats online via coveralls.io

PythonMIT★ 569 stars⑂ 184 forkssince Feb 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow 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. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

34
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.

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)
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 73 is calibrated to 87 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 followers36 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

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIcoveralls4.1.01,162,54448142 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

94Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence — 44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 167 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year167
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year44

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 32 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 142 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~208.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tag4.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release142
mean_days_between_releases208.2
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
44.7/60Stars — 569 stars
18.9/25Forks — 184 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks184
stars569
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 1,162,544 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescoveralls
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,162,544
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?

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 59 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled59
top_contributor_share0.429

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
41.3/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance — 483/578 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs483
open_issues3
closed_issues174
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.983
closed_unmerged_prs95
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.8/25Owner reach — 83 followers of TheKevJames
23.4/25Track record — 36 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers83
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginTheKevJames
public_repos36
account_age_days4,927
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 142 days ago
20/20Version history — 48 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescoveralls
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish142

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — coveralls-python.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscoveralls, coverage, pytest, nosetests, python
has_wikino
homepagecoveralls-python.readthedocs.io
docs_sitecoveralls-python.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

29At Risk
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 — 25 out of 25 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 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.8
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier29
security_posture_before_jurisdiction58
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
35/35Direct 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_packages13
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: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.

44Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/31 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes16,289
source_files_sampled31
oversized_source_files0

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 — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

569GitHub stars
59contributors
167commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
32releases
2bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-20 18:38 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-Tests25 out of 25 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 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcoverage(>=5.0,<8.0,!=6.0b1,!=6.0,!=6.0.1,!=6.0.2,!=6.1,!=6.1.1)pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests(>=1.0.0,<3.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPItyper(>=0.12.0,<1.0.0)pyproject.toml
All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcoverage7.14.2direct
PyPIcoverage7.15.0direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPItyper0.26.7direct
PyPItyper0.26.8direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoveralls4.1.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize1.5.0indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIresponses0.26.0indirect
PyPIresponses0.26.2indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with TheKevJames/coveralls-python. 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.Exceptional100reflex-dev/reflex🕸️ Web apps in pure Python 🐍Exceptional100optuna/optunaA hyperparameter optimization frameworkExceptional100scikit-learn/scikit-learnscikit-learn: machine learning in PythonExceptional100astropy/astropyAstronomy and astrophysics core libraryExceptional100ray-project/rayRay is an AI compute engine. Ray consists of a core distributed runtime and a set of AI Libraries for accelerating ML workloads.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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.