Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 07:15 UTC

antoniorodr / memo

Memo is a simple command-line interface (CLI) tool for managing your Apple Notes and Apple Reminders. It’s written in Python and aims to offer a fast, keyboard-driven way to create, search, and organize notes and reminders straight from your terminal.

PythonApache-2.0★ 334 stars⑂ 41 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#applenotes #applereminders #python #cli #terminal-based #macos

antoniorodr/memo holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (39/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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

Ownership

Antonio RodriguezPersonal account

73 followers31 public repossince Mar 2022

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	memopoints to another repo — not scored	0.2.4	531	9	539 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 17 days ago
15.2/36	Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 109 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	109
human_commit_share	0.93
days_since_last_push	17
active_weeks_last_year	22

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 35 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~18.2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	21
latest_release_tag	v0.6.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	35
mean_days_between_releases	18.2

Community & Adoption

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

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

57Moderate

How it's scored

40.9/60	Stars — 334 stars
13.4/25	Forks — 41 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	41
stars	334
watchers	4
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	1
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

39Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

15Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.976

Issue & PR responsiveness

54Moderate

How it's scored

25.6/42	Issue resolution — 61% of issues closed
21.6/30	PR acceptance — 18/25 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	18
open_issues	9
closed_issues	14
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.609
closed_unmerged_prs	7
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

54Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.4/25	Owner reach — 73 followers of antoniorodr
19.8/25	Track record — 31 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	73
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	antoniorodr
public_repos	31
account_age_days	1,614

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

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://antoniorodr.github.io/memo/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 6 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	applenotes, applereminders, python, cli, terminal-based, macos
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://antoniorodr.github.io/memo/
docs_site	https://antoniorodr.github.io/memo/
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?

59Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 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 0/18 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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
1/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
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	4.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	6
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:memo@0.2.4 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

68Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.9/40	Legible commit history — 40 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.43
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	3,050

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

42Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.07

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/19 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	9,022
source_files_sampled	19
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

334GitHub stars

4contributors

109commits, last 12 months

17days since last push

21releases

1bus factor

9open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi package 'memo' points at a different repository (https://github.com/koaning/memo); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 41 ⇿

0Stars

41Forks

20Releases

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 0Minor 5Patch 15

Each point covers 2 days.

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 · 2026-08-29 07:14 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	6 out of 6 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 0/18 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
10	Maintained	13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
2	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	chardet	`>=7.4.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click	`>=8.3.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	html2text	`>=2025.4.15`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	mistune	`>=3.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`>=2.7.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 20

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 15 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	chardet	`7.4.3`	direct
PyPI	click	`8.3.2`	direct
PyPI	html2text	`2025.4.15`	direct
PyPI	mistune	`3.3.0`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	direct
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.13.5`	indirect
PyPI	deepmerge	`2.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	memo	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.1`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	zensical	`0.0.33`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:memo@0.2.4 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.

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 — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records