Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 22:52 UTC

ZeyuChen / Paddle

PArallel Distributed Deep LEarning

C++ · PythonApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Nov 2018forkView on GitHub ↗

ZeyuChen/Paddle holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated 2172 days ago. 8 contributors account for most of its recent work.

34
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.

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)
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 39 is calibrated to 34 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Zeyu ChenPersonal account
311 followers39 public repossince Jan 2012Baidu, Inc.

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

20At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 2,172 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2,172
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases13 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,870 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~20.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv1.1.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,870
mean_days_between_releases20.8

Community & Adoption

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

12Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

82Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
54/54Bus factor8 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 14% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor8
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.138
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
17.9/25Owner reach311 followers of ZeyuChen
23.7/25Track record39 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers311
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginZeyuChen
public_repos39
account_age_days5,343
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://www.paddlepaddle.org/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.paddlepaddle.org/
docs_sitehttp://www.paddlepaddle.org/
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifestspython/requirements.txt
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno

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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.7/40Legible commit history50 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.5
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes16/2,443 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes290,420
source_files_sampled2,443
oversized_source_files16
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)paddle/fluid/framework/framework.proto, paddle/fluid/platform/profiler.proto, proto/DataConfig.proto, proto/DataFormat.proto, proto/ModelConfig.proto, proto/OptimizerConfig.proto, proto/ParameterConfig.proto, proto/ParameterServerConfig.proto, proto/ParameterService.proto, proto/TrainerConfig.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filespaddle/fluid/framework/framework.proto, paddle/fluid/platform/profiler.proto, proto/DataConfig.proto, proto/DataFormat.proto, proto/ModelConfig.proto, proto/OptimizerConfig.proto, proto/ParameterConfig.proto, proto/ParameterServerConfig.proto, proto/ParameterService.proto, proto/TrainerConfig.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
100contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,172days since last push
13releases
8bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit; 2026/09/09 22:51:36 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.