Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 22:54 UTC

achimdehnert / platform

BF Agent Platform - Monorepo for BFAgent, Travel Beat, and shared packages

PythonMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolNetwork servicehow this is determined

achimdehnert/platform holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

achimdehnertPersonal account
3 followers28 public repossince Nov 2017

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?

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

87Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 4,486 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year4,486
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

81Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 117 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~29.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv1.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release117
mean_days_between_releases29.5

Community & Adoption

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

36Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
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?

41Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% 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_share0.825

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
21.4/42Issue resolution — 51% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance — 2,020/2,085 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs2,020
open_issues541
closed_issues564
prs_merged_7d57
prs_decided_7d58
prs_merged_30d57
prs_decided_30d58
issue_closed_ratio0.51
closed_unmerged_prs65
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.

Ownership & stewardship

46Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
4.3/25Owner reach — 3 followers of achimdehnert
22.6/25Track record — 28 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers3
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginachimdehnert
public_repos28
account_age_days3,240
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 78 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 20 out of 20 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

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
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?

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 20 out of 20 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 11/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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 — 23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.9

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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 95 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.969
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,541

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

93Exceptional
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/Makefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/creative-services/docs/Makefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/docs-agent/docs/Makefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/mcp-governance/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — _ARCHIVED/packages/bfagent-core/src/bfagent_core/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/bfagent-llm/src/bfagent_llm/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/cad-services/src/cad_services/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/chat-agent/src/chat_agent/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/docs-agent/src/docs_agent/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/dvelop-client/src/dvelop_client/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/iil-django-commons/src/iil_commons/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/iil-platform/src/iil_platform/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/inception-mcp/src/inception_mcp/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/platform-context/src/platform_context/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/task_scorer/src/task_scorer/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 75 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/Makefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/creative-services/docs/Makefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/docs-agent/docs/Makefile, _ARCHIVED/packages/mcp-governance/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs_ARCHIVED/packages/bfagent-core/src/bfagent_core/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/bfagent-llm/src/bfagent_llm/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/cad-services/src/cad_services/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/chat-agent/src/chat_agent/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/docs-agent/src/docs_agent/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/dvelop-client/src/dvelop_client/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/iil-django-commons/src/iil_commons/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/iil-platform/src/iil_platform/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/inception-mcp/src/inception_mcp/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/platform-context/src/platform_context/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/task_scorer/src/task_scorer/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.75
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (_ARCHIVED/packages/bfagent-core/src/bfagent_core/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/bfagent-llm/src/bfagent_llm/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/cad-services/src/cad_services/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/chat-agent/src/chat_agent/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/docs-agent/src/docs_agent/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/dvelop-client/src/dvelop_client/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/iil-django-commons/src/iil_commons/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/iil-platform/src/iil_platform/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/inception-mcp/src/inception_mcp/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/platform-context/src/platform_context/py.typed, _ARCHIVED/packages/task_scorer/src/task_scorer/py.typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 7/1,170 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes87,027
source_files_sampled1,170
oversized_source_files7

Machine-readable interfaces

60Moderate
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

2GitHub stars
2contributors
4,486commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
541open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'bf-deploy' from its registry
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'iil-mail-tools' from its registry
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'adr-review' from its registry
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'iil-dienst' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 22:53 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 11/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
3Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIlitellm>=1.50packages/adr-review/pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.31packages/adr-review/pyproject.toml
PyPIDjango>=4.2packages/iil-dienst/pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.0tools/bf-deploy/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.25tools/bf-deploy/pyproject.toml
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with achimdehnert/platform. Read them side by side →

100mlco2/codecarbonTrack emissions from Compute and recommend ways to reduce their impact on the environment.Exceptional100aws/serverless-application-modelThe AWS Serverless Application Model (AWS SAM) transform is a AWS CloudFormation macro that transforms SAM templates into CloudFormation templates.Exceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK Exceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional100Arize-ai/phoenixAI Observability & EvaluationExceptional100matplotlib/matplotlibmatplotlib: plotting with PythonExceptional

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.