Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-15 20:50 UTC

Winipedia / pyrig-env

A pyrig plugin that contributes a .env file.

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Winipedia/pyrig-env holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WinipediaPersonal account

2 followers36 public repossince Mar 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	pyrig-env	1.0.80	5,138	52	0 days ago	pyrig

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

57Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
5.5/36	Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
15.7/18	Commit volume — 55 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully

Inputs used

commits_last_year	55
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	8

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 52 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	52
latest_release_tag	1.0.80
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	1

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?

48Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	0
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	37
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

62Moderate

How it's scored

49.5/80	Monthly downloads — 5,138 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	pyrig-env
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	5,138
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?

34At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30	PR acceptance — 0/4 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	4
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

42Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
3.4/25	Owner reach — 2 followers of Winipedia
20.6/25	Track record — 36 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	Winipedia
public_repos	36
account_age_days	1,676

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 52 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	pyrig-env
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://Winipedia.github.io/pyrig-env
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	pyrig
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://Winipedia.github.io/pyrig-env
docs_site	https://Winipedia.github.io/pyrig-env
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

42Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	4.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	83
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 83 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1/40	Legible commit history — 1 of 56 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.018
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — src/pyrig_env/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 56
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/pyrig_env/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/pyrig_env/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/11 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	2,148
source_files_sampled	11
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

0GitHub stars

1contributors

55commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

52releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

deps.dev does not index pypi:pyrig-env@1.0.80; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10

4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-10-15 20:50 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
8	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	pyrig	`>=18.108.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 83

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 82 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	pyrig	`18.108.8`	direct
PyPI	actionlint-py	`1.7.12.25`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	bandit	`1.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.16.2`	indirect
PyPI	deepmerge	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	deptry	`0.25.1`	indirect
PyPI	detect-secrets	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	griffelib	`2.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.20`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	inquirerpy	`0.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-autorefs	`1.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-get-deps	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocstrings	`1.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocstrings-python	`2.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pfzy	`0.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit-hooks	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	prek	`0.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.53`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`4.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`12.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-codecov	`3.17.82`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-codeql	`1.1.48`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-env	`1.0.80`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-fixtures	`2.26.9`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-opensource	`1.2.14`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-openssf	`0.1.31`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-plugin	`1.1.16`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-public	`1.1.38`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-pypi	`3.21.21`	indirect
PyPI	pyrig-runtime	`3.26.5`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-randomly	`5.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requirements-parser	`0.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruamel-yaml	`0.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	rumdl	`0.2.79`	indirect
PyPI	ryl	`0.24.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellcheck-py	`0.11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	shfmt-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	spdx-matcher	`0.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	stevedore	`5.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	tombi	`1.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	ty	`0.0.88`	indirect
PyPI	typer	`0.27.3`	indirect
PyPI	typos	`1.51.1`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	vulture	`2.16`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	zensical	`0.0.70`	indirect
PyPI	zizmor	`1.31.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 83 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records