Public record
Software health reportschema 0.29.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-02 18:26 UTC

abhishektiwari / hbat

HBAT 2: A Python Package to analyse Hydrogen Bonds and Other Non-covalent Interactions in Macromolecular Structures https://hbat-web.abhishek-tiwari.com

PythonMIT★ 11 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jun 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#pdb#protein-data-bank#structural-biology#protein-ligand-interactions#bioinformatics#bioinformatics-tool#computer-aided-drug-design#crystallography#drug-discovery#hydrogen-bonds#molecular-dynamics#molecular-dynamics-simulation#molecular-interactions#noncovalent-interactions#pi-interaction#halogen-bonds#chemistry#protein-dna-interactions#protein-protein-interaction#structural-bioinformatics

abhishektiwari/hbat holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Security (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

Abhishek TiwariPersonal account
0 followers146 public repossince Aug 2010

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
PyPIhbat2.4.1321,8671410 days agobioinformaticschemistryhydrogen-bondshalogen-bondsprotein-structurepdbmmcif

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

67Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9/36Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year23
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.4.13rc531785694560
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases5.6

Community & Adoption

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

55Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

19Critical
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars — 11 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars11
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges18
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

72Good
How it's scored
57.9/80Monthly downloads — 21,867 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshbat
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads21,867
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.981

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance — 49/51 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs49
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1

Ownership & stewardship

44Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of abhishektiwari
25/25Track record — 146 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginabhishektiwari
public_repos146
account_age_days5,832
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 — 141 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshbat
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://hbat.abhishek-tiwari.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspdb, protein-data-bank, structural-biology, protein-ligand-interactions, bioinformatics, bioinformatics-tool, computer-aided-drug-design, crystallography, drug-discovery, hydrogen-bonds, molecular-dynamics, molecular-dynamics-simulation, molecular-interactions, noncovalent-interactions, pi-interaction, halogen-bonds, chemistry, protein-dna-interactions, protein-protein-interaction, structural-bioinformatics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://hbat.abhishek-tiwari.com
docs_sitehttps://hbat.abhishek-tiwari.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

38Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
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 — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 41 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3.8

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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

38Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.2/40Legible commit history — 38 of 53 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.717
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

50Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 53
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.8/55Manageable file sizes — 5/127 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes101,735
source_files_sampled127
oversized_source_files5

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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

11GitHub stars
2contributors
23commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:hbat@2.4.13; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
85Releases

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.

12233312025-072026-012026-07
Major 0Minor 2Patch 26
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-02 18:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Vulnerabilities41 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpdbreader>=0.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrdkit>=2026.3.2pyproject.toml
PyPInetworkx>=2.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPIgraphviz>=0.20.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow>=9.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=3.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpdbfixer-wheel>=1.12.3pyproject.toml
PyPIopenbabel-wheel>=3.1.1.22pyproject.toml
PyPIpybel>=0.15.5pyproject.toml
PyPImmcif-pdbx>=2.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPImmcif>=0.92.0pyproject.toml
PyPItkinter-async-execute>=1.4.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIgraphviz—direct
PyPImatplotlib—direct
PyPImmcif—direct
PyPImmcif-pdbx—direct
PyPInetworkx—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIopenbabel-wheel—direct
PyPIpdbfixer-wheel—direct
PyPIpdbreader—direct
PyPIpillow—direct
PyPIpybel—direct
PyPIrdkit—direct
PyPItkinter-async-execute—direct
PyPIaiofiles—indirect
PyPIblack—indirect
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPIflask—indirect
PyPIflask-cors—indirect
PyPIhbat—indirect
PyPIisort—indirect
PyPIjupyter—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPInicegui—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpandas-stubs—indirect
PyPIpre-commit—indirect
PyPIpsutil—indirect
PyPIpyinstaller—indirect
PyPIpymol3d—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-mock—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints—indirect
PyPIsphinx-book-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-sitemap—indirect
PyPIsphinx-toolbox—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-bibtex—indirect
PyPItwine—indirect
PyPItypes-pillow—indirect
PyPItypes-requests—indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 abhishektiwari/hbat. Read them side by side →

78elkins/synth-pdbGenerate realistic PDB files with mixed secondary structures for testing, education and bioinformatics tool development. Jupyter Notebook tutorials are available to visualize the concepts..Good84bradyajohnston/molecularnodesToolbox for molecular animations in Blender, powered by Geometry Nodes.Excellent84project-gemmi/gemmimacromolecular crystallography library and utilitiesExcellent71elkins-lab/synth-pdbGenerate realistic PDB files with mixed secondary structures for testing, education and bioinformatics tool development. Jupyter Notebook tutorials are available to visualize the concepts..Good50pdbeurope/investigationsThis application is designed to create mmcif files from facilities data.Moderate60hfooladi/pdbrustA Rust library for parsing PDB (Protein Data Bank) filesModerate

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 v0.29.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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