Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 18:01 UTC

Visual-Computing / DynamicExplorationGraph

Repository related to the Dynamic Exploration Graph and its previous iterations.

C++ · JavaMIT★ 29 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗

Visual-Computing/DynamicExplorationGraph holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

16 followers15 public repossince Oct 2016

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIdeglib0.2.66,980142 days agoanns-searchgraphpython

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
9/36Commit cadence13/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume194 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year194
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~3.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.2.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases3.5
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.5/60Stars29 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars29
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.3/80Monthly downloads6,980 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdeglib
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads6,980
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 58% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.577
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
15/30PR acceptance1/2 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.8/25Owner reach16 followers of Visual-Computing
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers16
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginVisual-Computing
public_repos15
account_age_days3,634

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history14 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdeglib
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpython/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), ruff.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://dynamic-exploration-graph.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://dynamic-exploration-graph.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
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:deglib@0.2.6 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.95
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,198
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapjava/deg-api/build.gradle, java/deg-benchmark/build.gradle, java/deg-library/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpython/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), ruff.toml
11/11Static type checkingC++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsjava/deg-api/build.gradle, java/deg-benchmark/build.gradle, java/deg-library/build.gradle, java/deg-reference/build.gradle, java/deg-visualization/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes3/214 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes97,343
source_files_sampled214
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

29GitHub stars
3contributors
194commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
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 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212023-092024-022024-07
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 18:01 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=2.2python/pyproject.toml
PyPIpsutilpython/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 81

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 75 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpydirect
PyPInumpy2.2.6direct
PyPInumpy2.4.6direct
PyPInumpy2.5.1direct
PyPInumpy2.5.2direct
PyPIpsutil7.2.2direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcmakeindirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.2indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.3indirect
PyPIcycler0.12.1indirect
PyPIdeglib-docs0.1.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIdynamic-data-benchmark0.1.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.2indirect
PyPIfonttools4.63.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2026.7.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIh5py3.16.0indirect
PyPIhf-xet1.6.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub1.26.1indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub1.27.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.5.0indirect
PyPIknng-example0.1.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.10.9indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.11.1indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImips-example0.1.0indirect
PyPImyst-parser4.0.1indirect
PyPImyst-parser5.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaper-reproduction0.1.0indirect
PyPIpillow12.3.0indirect
PyPIpybind113.0.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsliding-window-benchmark0.1.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvibe0.1.0indirect
PyPIwheel0.48.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:deglib@0.2.6 pulls in 2 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.

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 statisticsPyPI.