Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-19 15:13 UTC

adamtheturtle / mypy-strict-kwargs

Enforce using keyword arguments where possible

PythonMIT★ 6 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Dec 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

adamtheturtle/mypy-strict-kwargs holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (97/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Adam DangoorPersonal account
75 followers84 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
PyPImypy-strict-kwargs2026.7.19.1231,7251231 days agomypy

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

97Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 827 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year827
human_commit_share0.32
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 31 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~63.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tag2026.07.19.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release31
mean_days_between_releases63.5
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

11Critical
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars — 6 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars6
watchers1
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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

89Excellent
How it's scored
71.5/80Monthly downloads — 231,725 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmypy-strict-kwargs
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads231,725
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

42Weak
How it's scored
7.2/42Issue resolution — 17% of issues closed
29.2/30PR acceptance — 572/587 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs572
open_issues144
closed_issues30
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d9
issue_closed_ratio0.172
closed_unmerged_prs15
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

61Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.5/25Owner reach — 75 followers of adamtheturtle
25/25Track record — 84 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers75
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginadamtheturtle
public_repos84
account_age_days5,571
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 31 days ago
20/20Version history — 12 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmypy-strict-kwargs
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish31

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 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 — 17 out of 17 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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 0/5 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 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 — 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_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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_packages6
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:mypy-strict-kwargs@2026.7.19.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 27 of 32 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.844
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/mypy_strict_kwargs/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 13 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 34 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_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/mypy_strict_kwargs/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.13
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.34

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/mypy_strict_kwargs/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes41,762
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

6GitHub stars
1contributors
827commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
144open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-19 15:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 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 0/5 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
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImypy>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPImypy2.3.1direct
PyPIactionlint-py1.7.12.24indirect
PyPIcheck-manifest0.51indirect
PyPIcheck-wheel-contents0.6.3indirect
PyPIdeptry0.25.1indirect
PyPIdoc82.0.0indirect
PyPIdoccmd2026.8.16indirect
PyPIinterrogate1.7.0indirect
PyPIno-defaults2.1.0indirect
PyPIprek0.4.13indirect
PyPIpydocstringformatter1.0.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.7indirect
PyPIpylint-per-file-ignores3.2.1indirect
PyPIpyproject-fmt2.27.1indirect
PyPIpyrefly1.2.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpyroma5.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mypy-plugins4.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIruff0.16.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm—indirect
PyPIshellcheck-py0.11.0.1indirect
PyPIshfmt-py4.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-lint1.0.2indirect
PyPIstrict-kwargs2026.7.24indirect
PyPItowncrier25.8.0indirect
PyPIty0.0.72indirect
PyPIvale3.13.0.0indirect
PyPIvulture2.16indirect
PyPIyamlfix1.19.1indirect
PyPIzizmor1.29.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mypy-strict-kwargs@2026.7.19.1 pulls in 6 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with adamtheturtle/mypy-strict-kwargs. Read them side by side →

98strawberry-graphql/strawberryA GraphQL library for Python that leverages type annotations 🍓Exceptional97typeddjango/django-stubsPEP-484 stubs for DjangoExceptional96dry-python/returnsMake your functions return something meaningful, typed, and safe!Exceptional95typeddjango/djangorestframework-stubsPEP-484 stubs for django-rest-frameworkExceptional91jorenham/optypeOpinionated typing package for precise type hints in PythonExcellent89kdeldycke/repomatic🏭 Automate repository maintenance, releases, and CI/CD workflowsExcellent

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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