Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 12:24 UTC

TomBursch / kitchenowl

KitchenOwl is a self-hosted grocery list and recipe manager. The backend is made with Flask and the frontend with Flutter. Easily add items to your shopping list before you go shopping. You can also create recipes and add items based on what you want to cook.

Dart · PythonAGPL-3.0★ 3,685 stars⑂ 240 forkssince Feb 2021View on GitHub ↗

KindNetwork serviceMobile applicationDesktop applicationhow this is determined

#self-hosted #grocery-list #mobile-app #recipe-manager #android #cross-platform #expense-tracker #flutter #ios #kitchenowl

TomBursch/kitchenowl holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (49/100). It was last updated 21 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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Tom BurschPersonal account

101 followers22 public repossince Oct 2014Chair of Software Engineering, RWTH Aachen University

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 21 days ago
17.3/36	Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 120 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	120
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	21
active_weeks_last_year	25

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 77 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 54 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~43.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	77
latest_release_tag	v0.7.10
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	54
mean_days_between_releases	43.6

Community & Adoption

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

77Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

84Excellent

How it's scored

57.8/60	Stars — 3,685 stars
19.8/25	Forks — 240 forks
6.8/15	Watchers — 18 watchers

Inputs used

forks	240
stars	3,685
watchers	18
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

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)

35Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 49 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	49
top_contributor_share	0.874

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate

How it's scored

21/42	Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
26.8/30	PR acceptance — 368/412 decided PRs merged
5.2/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	368
open_issues	317
closed_issues	316
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	5
prs_decided_30d	8
issue_closed_ratio	0.499
closed_unmerged_prs	44
first_time_authors_30d	5
first_time_prs_merged_30d	2
first_time_prs_decided_30d	5

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.4/25	Owner reach — 101 followers of TomBursch
21.9/25	Track record — 22 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	101
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	TomBursch
public_repos	22
account_age_days	4,363

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

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 — 10 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 — 10 out of 10 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 — https://kitchenowl.org/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	self-hosted, grocery-list, mobile-app, recipe-manager, android, cross-platform, expense-tracker, flutter, ios, kitchenowl
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://kitchenowl.org/
docs_site	https://kitchenowl.org/
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?

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 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
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 11 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 — 23 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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	5.4

Dependency advisories

74Good

How it's scored

15.4/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: nltk 3.10.3 (high 7.0)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	3
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	171
unassessed_packages	1
affected_by_severity	high 1, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 171 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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 78 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.78
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

67Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — kitchenowl/android/app/build.gradle.kts, kitchenowl/android/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Dart (statically typed)
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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	kitchenowl/android/app/build.gradle.kts, kitchenowl/android/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Dart (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/481 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Dart
largest_source_bytes	50,316
source_files_sampled	481
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

3,685GitHub stars

49contributors

120commits, last 12 months

21days since last push

77releases

1bus factor

317open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch pypi package 'KitchenOwl-Backend' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 240 ⇿

0Stars

240Forks

64Releases

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 3Patch 51

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10

5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 12:23 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
6	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	10 out of 10 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
2	Code-Review	Found 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 11 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	23 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
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7	Vulnerabilities	3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 40

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	apispec	`>=6.8.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	apispec-webframeworks	`>=1.2.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	apscheduler	`>=3.11.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	blurhash-python	`>=1.2.2`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask	`>=3.1.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-apscheduler	`>=1.13.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-basicauth	`>=0.2.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-bcrypt	`>=1.0.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-jwt-extended	`>=4.7.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-migrate	`>=4.1.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-socketio	`>=5.5.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-socketio	`>=5.16.2`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-sqlalchemy	`>=3.1.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	gevent	`>=24.11.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	greenlet	`>=3.1.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	ingredient-parser-nlp	`>=2.0.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	litellm	`>=1.65.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	marshmallow	`>=3.26.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	mlxtend	`==0.23.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	numpy	`>=2.2.4`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	prometheus-flask-exporter	`>=0.23.2`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	oic	`>=1.7.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	recipe-scrapers	`>=15.6.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	celery	`>=5.4.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	sqlite-icu	`>=1.0`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	lark	`>=1.2.2`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	dbscan1d	`>=0.2.3`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	pandas	`>=2.2.3`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	prometheus-client	`>=0.21.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.32.3`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests-hardened	`>=1.2.2`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`>=2.0.40`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	tqdm	`>=4.67.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	werkzeug	`>=3.1.3`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	nltk	`>=3.9.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	psycopg2-binary	`>=2.9.10`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	uWSGI	`>=2.0.28`	backend/pyproject.toml
PyPI	uwsgi-tools	`>=1.1.1`	backend/pyproject.toml
RubyGems	fastlane	`—`	kitchenowl/android/Gemfile
RubyGems	fastlane	`—`	kitchenowl/ios/Gemfile

All dependencies 172

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 39 direct and 133 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	apispec	`6.10.0`	direct
PyPI	apispec-webframeworks	`1.2.0`	direct
PyPI	apscheduler	`3.11.3`	direct
PyPI	blurhash-python	`1.2.2`	direct
PyPI	celery	`5.6.3`	direct
PyPI	dbscan1d	`0.2.4`	direct
PyPI	flask	`3.1.3`	direct
PyPI	flask-apscheduler	`1.13.1`	direct
PyPI	flask-basicauth	`0.2.0`	direct
PyPI	flask-bcrypt	`1.0.1`	direct
PyPI	flask-jwt-extended	`4.7.4`	direct
PyPI	flask-migrate	`4.1.0`	direct
PyPI	flask-socketio	`5.6.1`	direct
PyPI	flask-sqlalchemy	`3.1.1`	direct
PyPI	gevent	`26.8.0`	direct
PyPI	greenlet	`3.5.5`	direct
PyPI	ingredient-parser-nlp	`2.7.0`	direct
PyPI	lark	`1.3.1`	direct
PyPI	litellm	`1.98.0`	direct
PyPI	marshmallow	`4.3.1`	direct
PyPI	mlxtend	`0.23.1`	direct
PyPI	nltk	`3.10.3`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.5.2`	direct
PyPI	oic	`1.7.0`	direct
PyPI	pandas	`3.0.5`	direct
PyPI	prometheus-client	`0.26.0`	direct
PyPI	prometheus-flask-exporter	`0.23.2`	direct
PyPI	psycopg2-binary	`2.9.12`	direct
PyPI	python-socketio	`5.16.4`	direct
PyPI	recipe-scrapers	`15.12.0`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	requests-hardened	`1.3.0`	direct
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.0.52`	direct
PyPI	sqlite-icu	`1.0`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`4.70.0`	direct
PyPI	uwsgi	`2.0.31`	direct
PyPI	uwsgi-tools	`1.1.1`	direct
PyPI	werkzeug	`3.1.8`	direct
RubyGems	fastlane	`—`	direct
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.14.3`	indirect
PyPI	aiosignal	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	alembic	`1.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	amqp	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	bcrypt	`5.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	bidict	`0.24.1`	indirect
PyPI	billiard	`4.2.4`	indirect
PyPI	blinker	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	boto3	`1.43.83`	indirect
PyPI	botocore	`1.43.83`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	click-didyoumean	`0.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	click-plugins	`1.1.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	click-repl	`0.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	contourpy	`1.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	cycler	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	distro	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	extruct	`0.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	fastuuid	`0.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.4`	indirect
PyPI	flexcache	`0.3`	indirect
PyPI	flexparser	`0.4`	indirect
PyPI	fonttools	`4.63.0`	indirect
PyPI	frozenlist	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	fsspec	`2026.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	future	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hf-xet	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	html-text	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	html5lib	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	huggingface-hub	`1.29.0`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.19`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.19`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isodate	`0.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	itsdangerous	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jiter	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	jmespath	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	joblib	`1.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	jstyleson	`0.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	kitchenowl-backend	`0.7.10`	indirect
PyPI	kiwisolver	`1.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	kombu	`5.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	lxml-html-clean	`0.4.5`	indirect
PyPI	mako	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib	`3.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	mf2py	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	mike	`2.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.6.14`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	narwhals	`2.25.0`	indirect
PyPI	neoteroi-mkdocs	`1.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	openai	`2.54.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pint	`0.25.3`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.5`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.53`	indirect
PyPI	propcache	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycryptodomex	`3.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.5`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.5`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-settings	`2.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwkest	`1.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyrdfa3	`3.6.5`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.411`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	python-engineio	`4.13.5`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	rdflib	`7.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	regex	`2026.7.19`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`2026.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.5`	indirect
PyPI	s3transfer	`0.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	scikit-learn	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.18.1`	indirect
PyPI	simple-websocket	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	threadpoolctl	`3.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	tiktoken	`0.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	tokenizers	`0.23.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.3`	indirect
PyPI	tzlocal	`5.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	vine	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.7.7`	indirect
PyPI	w3lib	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	webencodings	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	wsproto	`1.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.24.5`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	zope-event	`6.2`	indirect
PyPI	zope-interface	`8.6`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 171 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 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.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
nltk	`3.10.3`	direct	high	1	—
mkdocs-material	`9.6.14`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.7.7`

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records