Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-21 09:08 UTC

WessexWater / chellow

Web application for checking UK electricity and gas bills

Python · HTMLNo license detected★ 11 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Feb 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

WessexWater/chellow holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (25/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Wessex WaterOrganization
3 followers2 public repossince Feb 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIchellow1787302940.0.02,4541,2600 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume258 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained26 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year258
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year44
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars11 stars
7.5/25Forks9 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars11
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.2/80Monthly downloads2,454 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageschellow
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads2,454
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 99% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.989
How it's scored
33.5/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
5.1/30PR acceptance7/41 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues23
closed_issues91
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.798
closed_unmerged_prs34
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
4.3/25Owner reach3 followers of WessexWater
15.5/25Track record2 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers3
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginWessexWater
public_repos2
account_age_days4,196
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history1,260 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageschellow
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.flake8])
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.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.chellow.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsuk, electricity-bill, gas-bill, electricity, billing, validation, python
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.chellow.org/
docs_sitehttps://www.chellow.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
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
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained26 commit(s) and 0 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages18
unassessed_packages4
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 18 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

25At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.1/40Legible commit history2 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.02
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.flake8])
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
52.8/55Manageable file sizes9/226 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes270,140
source_files_sampled226
oversized_source_files9

Key facts

11GitHub stars
6contributors
258commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
23open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:chellow@1787302940.0.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

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.

0246810922016-032021-042026-05

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-21 09:07 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
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
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
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained26 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
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 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIodio==0.0.23pyproject.toml
PyPIpypdf==6.15.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpg8000==1.31.5pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask==3.1.3pyproject.toml
PyPISQLAlchemy==2.0.50pyproject.toml
PyPIflask-restx==1.3.2pyproject.toml
PyPIjsonschema==4.26.0pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdown-it-py==4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIopenpyxl==3.1.5pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil==2.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpytz==2025.2pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests==2.33.0pyproject.toml
PyPIwaitress==3.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpip>=9.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPIparamiko==5.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpympler==1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpsutil==7.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIxlrd==2.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIzish==0.1.12pyproject.toml
PyPIazure-identitypyproject.toml
PyPIpytestpyproject.toml
PyPIpytest-mockpyproject.toml
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIazure-identitydirect
PyPIflask3.1.3direct
PyPIflask-restx1.3.2direct
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0direct
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0direct
PyPIodio0.0.23direct
PyPIopenpyxl3.1.5direct
PyPIparamiko5.0.0direct
PyPIpg80001.31.5direct
PyPIpipdirect
PyPIpsutil7.1.1direct
PyPIpympler1.1direct
PyPIpypdf6.15.0direct
PyPIpytestdirect
PyPIpytest-mockdirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.8.2direct
PyPIpytz2025.2direct
PyPIrequests2.33.0direct
PyPIsqlalchemy2.0.50direct
PyPIwaitress3.0.2direct
PyPIxlrd2.0.2direct
PyPIzish0.1.12direct
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 18 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.