Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 14:34 UTC

adamtheturtle / hackerrank

Python library for the HackerRank for Work API

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince May 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

adamtheturtle/hackerrank holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Adam DangoorPersonal account
73 followers74 public repossince May 2011

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
PyPIhackerrank2026.7.194,95830 days agoclienthackerrankinterview

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

61Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 228 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year228
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 5 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~17.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tag2026.07.19
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases17.1
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

62Moderate
How it's scored
49.3/80Monthly downloads — 4,958 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshackerrank
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,958
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?

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

55Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.359

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.7/30PR acceptance — 101/102 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs101
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.4/25Owner reach — 73 followers of adamtheturtle
25/25Track record — 74 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers73
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginadamtheturtle
public_repos74
account_age_days5,540
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

92Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
12/20Version history — 3 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshackerrank
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 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://adamtheturtle.github.io/hackerrank-api-python/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://adamtheturtle.github.io/hackerrank-api-python/
docs_sitehttps://adamtheturtle.github.io/hackerrank-api-python/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak
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 — 14 out of 14 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 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

41Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/hackerrank/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/hackerrank/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

76Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/hackerrank/py.typed)
48.5/55Manageable file sizes — 2/17 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes80,205
source_files_sampled17
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

50Moderate
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — openapi.json
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesopenapi.json
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
4contributors
228commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
5releases
2bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 14:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests14 out of 14 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 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIbeartype>=0.22.9pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.28.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 47

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 45 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbeartype0.22.9direct
PyPIhttpx—direct
PyPIactionlint-py1.7.12.24indirect
PyPIcheck-manifest0.51indirect
PyPIcheck-wheel-contents0.6.3indirect
PyPIdeptry0.25.1indirect
PyPIdoc82.0.0indirect
PyPIdoccmd2026.5.25indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIinterrogate1.7.0indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-strict-kwargs2026.5.20.1indirect
PyPIopenapi-mock2026.3.2indirect
PyPIprek0.4.10indirect
PyPIpydocstringformatter1.0.0indirect
PyPIpydocstyle6.3indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.6indirect
PyPIpylint-per-file-ignores3.2.1indirect
PyPIpyproject-fmt2.25.3indirect
PyPIpyrefly1.1.1indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpyroma5.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-beartype-tests2026.4.26indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrespx0.23.1indirect
PyPIruff0.15.22indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm—indirect
PyPIshellcheck-py0.11.0.1indirect
PyPIshfmt-py4.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-lint1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-pyproject0.3.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-substitution-extensions2026.6.17indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-spelling8.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-towncrier0.5.0a0indirect
PyPIstrict-kwargs2026.6.8.post1indirect
PyPIsybil10.1.0indirect
PyPItowncrier25.8.0indirect
PyPIty0.0.60indirect
PyPIvulture2.16indirect
PyPIyamlfix1.19.1indirect
PyPIzizmor1.27.0indirect
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 adamtheturtle/hackerrank. Read them side by side →

98valkey-io/valkey-glideAn open source Valkey client library that supports Valkey, and Redis open source 6.2, 7.0 and 7.2. Valkey GLIDE is designed for reliability, optimized performance, and high-availability, for Valkey and Redis OSS based applications. GLIDE is a multi language client library, written in Rust with programming language bindings, such as Java and PythonExceptional98mem0ai/mem0Universal memory layer for AI AgentsExceptional98psf/requestsA simple, yet elegant, HTTP library.Exceptional97apify/apify-client-pythonApify API client for Python—Programmatically run Actors, manage and stream data from storages (datasets, key-value stores, request queues), schedule and monitor runs, and access the full Apify platform API. Sync and async interfaces with automatic retries and pagination.Exceptional96php-curl-class/php-curl-classPHP Curl Class makes it easy to send HTTP requests and integrate with web APIsExceptional96python-gitlab/python-gitlabA python wrapper for the GitLab API.Exceptional

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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