Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 01:57 UTC

Winipedia / winiutils

A utility library for Python development

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Winipedia/winiutils holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WinipediaPersonal account
1 follower23 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

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIwiniutils4.14.25-2090 days agopyrig

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

91Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
27/36Commit cadence — 39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 658 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year658
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year39

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag4.14.25
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.4
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
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_badges33
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

48Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
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

Issue & PR responsiveness

61Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
27.5/30PR acceptance — 11/12 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_prs11
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

39Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of Winipedia
18.8/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginWinipedia
public_repos23
account_age_days1,603
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 209 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswiniutils
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
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
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.3
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
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages91
unassessed_packages0
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 91 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.

38Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — 0 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/winiutils/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssrc/winiutils/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/winiutils/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/46 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes27,638
source_files_sampled46
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
658commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index pypi:winiutils@4.14.25; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 01:57 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-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
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcryptography>=49.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIdefusedxml>=0.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIkeyring>=25.7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIkeyrings-alt>=5.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpolars>=1.42.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpyrig-runtime>=3.5.2pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm>=4.68.4pyproject.toml
All dependencies 91

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 84 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcryptography50.0.0direct
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1direct
PyPIkeyring25.7.0direct
PyPIkeyrings-alt5.0.2direct
PyPIpolars1.43.2direct
PyPIpyrig-runtime3.20.47direct
PyPItqdm4.70.0direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.5indirect
PyPIbandit1.9.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.3indirect
PyPIdeepmerge2.1.0indirect
PyPIdeptry0.25.1indirect
PyPIdetect-secrets1.5.0indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIinquirerpy0.3.4indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.6.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.6indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpfzy0.3.4indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpolars-runtime-321.43.2indirect
PyPIpre-commit-hooks6.0.0indirect
PyPIprek0.4.12indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.53indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpyrig18.47.0indirect
PyPIpyrig-pypi3.18.26indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly4.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequirements-parser0.13.1indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml0.19.1indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml-clib0.2.15indirect
PyPIruff0.16.1indirect
PyPIrumdl0.2.49indirect
PyPIryl0.21.0indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIshellcheck-py0.11.0.1indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIshfmt-py4.0.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIspdx-matcher0.1.4indirect
PyPIstevedore5.9.0indirect
PyPItombi1.2.6indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPIty0.0.66indirect
PyPItyper0.27.1indirect
PyPItypes-defusedxml0.7.0.20260504indirect
PyPItypes-tqdm4.70.0.20260731indirect
PyPItypos1.49.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
PyPIwiniutils4.14.25indirect
PyPIzensical0.0.52indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 91 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Winipedia/winiutils. Read them side by side →

75Winipedia/pyrigA tool that standardizes and automates Python project setup, configuration, development, and maintenance.Good63Winipedia/winidjangoA utility package for djangoModerate60Winipedia/winipysideA utilities package for PySide6Moderate57Winipedia/pyrig-runtimeRuntime dependency and library for projects built with pyrig.Moderate56Winipedia/pyrig-containers-pypiA pyrig plugin that combines the pyrig-containers and pyrig-pypi plugins.Moderate56Winipedia/pyrig-pypiA pyrig plugin for publishing Python packages to PyPI.Moderate

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.