Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 19:26 UTC

XRPLF / xbridge-cli

PythonMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

XRPLF/xbridge-cli holds a health index of 21 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (60/100) and lowest on Vitality (23/100). It was last updated 219 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 40 is calibrated to 35 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

XRP Ledger Foundation (Official)Organization

1,068 followers50 public repossince Jul 2020

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	xbridge-clipoints to another repo — not scored	0.3.3	19	6	1063 days ago	xrp xrpl cryptocurrency

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

23At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

4Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 1042 daysautomated commits excludedpull requests left unansweredreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedOverall rating: At Risk ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

3.6/36	Push recency — last push 219 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	0.62
days_since_last_push	219
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 6 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,154 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~56.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	6
latest_release_tag	v0.3.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,154
mean_days_between_releases	56.4

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?

37Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

20At Risk

How it's scored

9.8/60	Stars — 5 stars
5.8/25	Forks — 6 forks
4.3/15	Watchers — 7 watchers

Inputs used

forks	6
stars	5
watchers	7
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

57Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

37Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

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
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

26At Risk

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
22.4/30	PR acceptance — 133/178 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	133
open_issues	4
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0
closed_unmerged_prs	45
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

76Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
21.8/25	Owner reach — 1,068 followers of XRPLF
24.4/25	Track record — 50 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,068
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	XRPLF
public_repos	50
account_age_days	2,254

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.isort])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	no

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

33At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 28 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	3.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

74Good

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
6.8/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: h11 0.14.0 (critical 9.1)
32.6/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 502 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	2
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	28
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Matched the pypi:xbridge-cli@0.3.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 28 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 62 of 62 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.isort])
11/11	Static type checking — mypy.ini
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 38 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	mypy.ini
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.38

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (mypy.ini)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/51 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	18,864
source_files_sampled	51
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

5GitHub stars

1contributors

0commits, last 12 months

219days since last push

6releases

1bus factor

4open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi package 'xbridge-cli' points at a different repository (https://github.com/xpring-eng/xbridge-cli); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿

0Stars

6Forks

6Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 3Patch 1

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10

3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 19:26 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	28 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	click	`^8.1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tabulate	`>=0.8.9,<0.10.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx	`>=0.18.1,<0.25.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	websockets	`^10.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Jinja2	`^3.1.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psutil	`^5.9.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	docker	`^6.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	xrpl-py	`^2.4.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pycryptodome	`^3.17`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 58

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	click	`8.1.7`	direct
PyPI	docker	`6.1.3`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.24.1`	direct
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.2`	direct
PyPI	psutil	`5.9.7`	direct
PyPI	pycryptodome	`3.19.1`	direct
PyPI	tabulate	`0.9.0`	direct
PyPI	websockets	`10.4`	direct
PyPI	xrpl-py	`2.4.0`	direct
PyPI	anyio	`3.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`22.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	base58	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	black	`23.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2022.12.7`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.2.7`	indirect
PyPI	darglint	`1.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	deprecated	`1.2.14`	indirect
PyPI	ecpy	`1.2.5`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`5.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-absolute-import	`1.0.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-annotations	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-black	`0.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-docstrings	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-isort	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`0.16.3`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.4`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`5.11.5`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`23.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	pydocstyle	`6.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`2.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`7.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`305`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.28.2`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	typed-ast	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	types-deprecated	`1.2.9.3`	indirect
PyPI	types-tabulate	`0.9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`1.26.14`	indirect
PyPI	websocket-client	`1.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	wrapt	`1.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.13.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:xbridge-cli@0.3.3 pulls in 28 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
h11	`0.14.0`	indirect	critical	2	`0.16.0`

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