Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 20:07 UTC

adskyiproger / transmission-telegram-bot

Download torrent data to Home DLNA server

PythonGPL-3.0★ 6 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Mar 2020View on GitHub ↗

adskyiproger/transmission-telegram-bot holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (31/100). It was last updated 50 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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.

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)

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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Vadym MudryiPersonal account

5 followers7 public repossince Mar 2015

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?

51Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

29At Risk

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 50 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18	Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

commits_last_year	4
human_commit_share	0.96
days_since_last_push	50
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 60 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~152.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	11
latest_release_tag	v1.4.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	60
mean_days_between_releases	152.5

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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

15Critical

How it's scored

11.3/60	Stars — 6 stars
4/25	Forks — 4 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	4
stars	6
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

31At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5	Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	2
top_contributor_share	0.994

Issue & PR responsiveness

42Weak

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
19.1/30	PR acceptance — 21/33 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	21
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	12
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

43Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5.6/25	Owner reach — 5 followers of adskyiproger
18.6/25	Track record — 7 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	5
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	adskyiproger
public_repos	7
account_age_days	4,197

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 2 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	telegram-bot, torrents
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

45Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
2.2/7.5	Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	2
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	60
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 60 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

6Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.6/40	Legible commit history — 10 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.104
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
11/11	Static type checking — mypy.ini
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Pipfile.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	mypy.ini
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.04

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (mypy.ini)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/29 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	20,069
source_files_sampled	29
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

6GitHub stars

2contributors

4commits, last 12 months

50days since last push

11releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿

0Stars

4Forks

10Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 3Patch 6

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10

4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 20:07 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
3	Maintained	4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	black	`26.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	boolean-py	`5.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachecontrol	`0.14.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.6.17`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	cyclonedx-python-lib	`11.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.29.7`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`7.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	license-expression	`30.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	msgpack	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	packageurl-python	`0.17.6`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pip	`26.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	pip-api	`0.0.34`	indirect
PyPI	pip-audit	`2.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	pip-requirements-parser	`32.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	py-serializable	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydash	`8.0.6`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-telegram-bot	`22.8`	indirect
PyPI	pytokens	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	qrcode	`8.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	transmission-rpc	`7.0.11`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.33.0.20260712`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 60 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pip	`26.1.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`26.2.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records