Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 00:01 UTC

YannickJadoul / Parselmouth

Praat in Python, the Pythonic way

C++ · PythonGPL-3.0★ 1,288 stars⑂ 131 forkssince Jun 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryDesktop applicationhow this is determined

YannickJadoul/Parselmouth holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Security (51/100). It was last updated 27 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Yannick JadoulPersonal account
97 followers30 public repossince Jun 2014Sapienza University of Rome & Vrije Universiteit Brussel

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
PyPIpraat-parselmouth0.4.7380,61216294 days agopraatspeechsignal-processingphonetics

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 27 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share0.78
days_since_last_push27
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 294 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~294 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv0.4.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release294
mean_days_between_releases294

Community & Adoption

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

79Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50.4/60Stars — 1,288 stars
17.6/25Forks — 131 forks
7.2/15Watchers — 21 watchers
Inputs used
forks131
stars1,288
watchers21
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
74.4/80Monthly downloads — 380,612 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespraat-parselmouth
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads380,612
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.992
How it's scored
34/42Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance — 65/74 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs65
open_issues17
closed_issues72
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.809
closed_unmerged_prs9
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
14.3/25Owner reach — 97 followers of YannickJadoul
22.9/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers97
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginYannickJadoul
public_repos30
account_age_days4,462
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 294 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespraat-parselmouth
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish294

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pybind11/setup.cfg ([flake8])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://parselmouth.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://parselmouth.readthedocs.io/
docs_sitehttps://parselmouth.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
4.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:praat-parselmouth@0.4.7 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.4/40Legible commit history — 5 of 78 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.064
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile, praat/EEG/Makefile, praat/FFNet/Makefile, praat/LPC/Makefile, praat/Makefile, praat/artsynth/Makefile, praat/dwsys/Makefile, praat/dwtools/Makefile, praat/external/clapack/Makefile, praat/external/espeak/Makefile, praat/external/flac/Makefile, praat/external/glpk/Makefile, praat/external/gsl/Makefile, praat/external/lame/Makefile, praat/external/mp3/Makefile, praat/external/opusfile/Makefile, praat/external/portaudio/Makefile, praat/external/vorbis/Makefile, praat/fon/Makefile, praat/foned/Makefile, praat/gram/Makefile, praat/kar/Makefile, praat/main/Makefile, praat/melder/Makefile, praat/sensors/Makefile, praat/stat/Makefile, praat/sys/Makefile, pybind11/docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pybind11/setup.cfg ([flake8])
11/11Static type checking — pybind11/pybind11/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, praat/EEG/Makefile, praat/FFNet/Makefile, praat/LPC/Makefile, praat/Makefile, praat/artsynth/Makefile, praat/dwsys/Makefile, praat/dwtools/Makefile, praat/external/clapack/Makefile, praat/external/espeak/Makefile, praat/external/flac/Makefile, praat/external/glpk/Makefile, praat/external/gsl/Makefile, praat/external/lame/Makefile, praat/external/mp3/Makefile, praat/external/opusfile/Makefile, praat/external/portaudio/Makefile, praat/external/vorbis/Makefile, praat/fon/Makefile, praat/foned/Makefile, praat/gram/Makefile, praat/kar/Makefile, praat/main/Makefile, praat/melder/Makefile, praat/sensors/Makefile, praat/stat/Makefile, praat/sys/Makefile, pybind11/docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspybind11/pybind11/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.14
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
52.8/55Manageable file sizes — 123/3,100 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes33,981,751
source_files_sampled3,100
oversized_source_files123
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1,288GitHub stars
5contributors
45commits, last 12 months
27days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
17open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'praat-parselmouth' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for praat-parselmouth carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 131 ⇿
0Stars
131Forks
15Releases

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.

025507510012515013032017-072021-122026-05
Major 0Minor 3Patch 12

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 00:00 UTC

6Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=1.7.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPInumpy1.16.6direct
PyPInumpy1.18.0direct
PyPInumpy1.19.3direct
PyPIbreathe4.25.1indirect
PyPIcommonmark0.9.1indirect
PyPIflask—indirect
PyPIgitpython—indirect
PyPIipykernel—indirect
PyPIipython—indirect
PyPIipywidgets—indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPInbclient—indirect
PyPInbsphinx—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpygithub—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest4.6.9indirect
PyPIpytest6.1.2indirect
PyPIpytest6.2.1indirect
PyPIpytest-lazy-fixtures—indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout—indirect
PyPIrecommonmark0.7.1indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIscikit-build-core—indirect
PyPIscipy1.2.3indirect
PyPIscipy1.5.4indirect
PyPIseaborn—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx3.3.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-book-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme0.5.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-moderncmakedomain3.17indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-svg2pdfconverter1.1.0indirect
PyPItgt—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:praat-parselmouth@0.4.7 pulls in 1 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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 statistics — PyPI.