Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 18:47 UTC

TimMcCool / scratchattach

Scratch API wrapper with support for almost all site features, cloud requests framework and more

PythonMIT★ 253 stars⑂ 54 forkssince Apr 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

TimMcCool/scratchattach holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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).

Ownership

TimPersonal account
243 followers16 public repossince Jul 2019

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence — 28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 271 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year271
human_commit_share0.48
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year28

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tagv2.2.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases18.9
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39/60Stars — 253 stars
14.4/25Forks — 54 forks
6.8/15Watchers — 18 watchers
Inputs used
forks54
stars253
watchers18
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadgen.net, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 35 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled35
top_contributor_share0.575
How it's scored
39.5/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
22.2/30PR acceptance — 155/209 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs155
open_issues27
closed_issues423
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.94
closed_unmerged_prs54
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.2/25Owner reach — 243 followers of TimMcCool
21/25Track record — 16 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers243
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginTimMcCool
public_repos16
account_age_days2,647
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 162 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesscratchattach
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
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 — 16 out of 16 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://scratchattach.tim1de.net
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapi, bot, bot-framework, bots, cloud, python, scratch
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://scratchattach.tim1de.net
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 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
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 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 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: aiohttp 3.14.3 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories69
affected_packages9
assessed_packages52
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 3, moderate 4, low 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 52 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 46 of 48 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.958
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — scratchattach/py.typed, tests/src/util/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 52 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsscratchattach/py.typed, tests/src/util/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.52
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (scratchattach/py.typed, tests/src/util/py.typed)
53.5/55Manageable file sizes — 3/112 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes287,630
source_files_sampled112
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

253GitHub stars
35contributors
271commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
34releases
1bus factor
27open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'scratchattach' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:scratchattach@2.2.6; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 54 ⇿
0Stars
54Forks
30Releases

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.

01020304050605432022-052024-072026-08
Major 1Minor 0Patch 19

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 18:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 1/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 4 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 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIwebsocket-client—pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests—pyproject.toml
PyPIbs4—pyproject.toml
PyPISimpleWebSocketServer—pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions—pyproject.toml
PyPIbrowser_cookie3—pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp—pyproject.toml
PyPIrich—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 53

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 45 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3direct
PyPIbrowser-cookie30.20.1direct
PyPIbs40.0.2direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPIsimplewebsocketserver0.1.2direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0direct
PyPIwebsocket-client1.9.0direct
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIidna3.13indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIlark1.3.1indirect
PyPIlz44.4.5indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.0indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpillow12.1.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.4.1indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpycryptodomex3.23.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.3indirect
PyPIpywin32311indirect
PyPIrich-pixels3.0.1indirect
PyPIruff0.16.5indirect
PyPIscratchattach3.0.0b4indirect
PyPIshadowcopy0.0.4indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIutil0.1.0indirect
PyPIwmi1.5.1indirect
PyPIyarl1.22.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.23.0indirect
Dependency advisories 9

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 52 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 9 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pillow12.1.0indirectcritical3812.3.0
aiohttp3.14.3directhigh33.14.4
soupsieve2.8.3indirecthigh82.9.0
urllib32.6.3indirecthigh102.8.0
idna3.11indirectmoderate23.15
idna3.13indirectmoderate23.15
multidict6.7.0indirectmoderate26.9.1
multidict6.7.1indirectmoderate26.9.1
pygments2.19.2indirectlow22.20.0

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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.