Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 02:32 UTC

Vladimir-Human / humanizer-ru

Проверяемая гигиена вставки из чата для русского текста

PythonMIT★ 124 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Vladimir-Human/humanizer-ru holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (54/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

VladimirPersonal account
8 followers10 public repossince May 2018

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 publishTags
PyPIhumanizer-ru3.36.44,354341 day agocontentreferenceutm-sourcerussianai-texthumanizeragent-skills

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 986 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year986
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.7 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 3 out of the last 3 releases have a total of 3 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv3.36.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases0.7

Community & Adoption

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

64Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
33.9/60Stars — 124 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars124
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
48.5/80Monthly downloads — 4,354 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshumanizer-ru
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,354
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
39/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance — 222/227 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs222
open_issues1
closed_issues13
prs_merged_7d57
prs_decided_7d57
prs_merged_30d57
prs_decided_30d57
issue_closed_ratio0.929
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of Vladimir-Human
19.6/25Track record — 10 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginVladimir-Human
public_repos10
account_age_days3,052
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 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 34 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshumanizer-ru
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 16 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://vladimir-human.github.io/humanizer-ru/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, humanizer, nlp, russian, agent-skills, claude, llm, claude-skill, cli, github-action, llm-tools, pypi, python, russian-language, skill, text-normalization, typography, claude-code, cursor, mcp
has_wikino
homepagehttps://vladimir-human.github.io/humanizer-ru/
docs_sitehttps://vladimir-human.github.io/humanizer-ru/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 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 — 23 out of 23 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 3 out of the last 3 releases have a total of 3 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.8

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
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
34.6/40Legible commit history — 63 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.649
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes10,998
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.2/55Manageable file sizes — 6/186 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes83,719
source_files_sampled186
oversized_source_files6
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

124GitHub stars
1contributors
986commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'humanizer-ru-dsh' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 9 ⇿
0Stars
9Forks

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.

0246810912026-052026-072026-08
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 02:31 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests23 out of 23 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases3 out of the last 3 releases have a total of 3 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.