Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 04:03 UTC

anuga-community / anuga_core

ANUGA: open-source hydrodynamic modelling of floods, tsunamis and storm surges (shallow water equations, finite volumes). GPU/multicore solver developed with C-DAC (India) and NCI (Australia).

Python · Jupyter NotebookCustom license★ 61 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Aug 2020forkView on GitHub ↗

anuga-community/anuga_core holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (40/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ANUGA CommunityOrganization
17 followers9 public repossince May 2017

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIanuga4.0.13,2492933 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
31.2/36Commit cadence — 45/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,327 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,327
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year45
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 33 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tag4.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release33
mean_days_between_releases14.3

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/60Stars — 61 stars
12.5/25Forks — 33 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks33
stars61
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
46.8/80Monthly downloads — 3,249 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesanuga
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,249
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 33 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.575
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
28/30PR acceptance — 274/294 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs274
open_issues16
closed_issues125
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d52
prs_decided_30d53
issue_closed_ratio0.887
closed_unmerged_prs20
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9/25Owner reach — 17 followers of anuga-community
19.3/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers17
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginanuga-community
public_repos9
account_age_days3,441

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 33 days ago
20/20Version history — 29 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesanuga
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish33

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 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 — 13 out of 13 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://anuga.anu.edu.au
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 12 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfinite-volume, flood-modelling, gpu, hydrodynamics, mpi, openmp, python, scientific-computing, sediment-transport, shallow-water-equations, storm-surge, tsunami
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://anuga.anu.edu.au
docs_sitehttps://anuga.anu.edu.au
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 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 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.3
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
10.2/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: certifi 2026.10.18 (high 7.4)
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages22
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the pypi:anuga@4.0.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 22 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 94 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.949
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes9,590
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — anuga/fit_interpolate/Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 65 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesanuga/fit_interpolate/Makefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.65
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.8/55Manageable file sizes — 35/878 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes258,493
source_files_sampled878
oversized_source_files35
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

61GitHub stars
33contributors
1,327commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
16open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿
0Stars
33Forks
18Releases

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.

01325383322020-082023-072026-07
Major 0Minor 2Patch 14

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 04:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 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 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIdill>=0.3.7pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=3.7pyproject.toml
PyPInetCDF4>=1.6pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.11pyproject.toml
PyPImeshpy>=2022.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpymetis>=2023.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpyproj>=3.6pyproject.toml
PyPIxarray—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 20 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdill—direct
PyPImatplotlib—direct
PyPImeshpy—direct
PyPInetcdf4—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIpymetis—direct
PyPIpyproj—direct
PyPIscipy—direct
PyPIxarray—direct
PyPIaffine—indirect
PyPIcartopy—indirect
PyPIcontextily—indirect
PyPIcython—indirect
PyPIfuture—indirect
PyPIgdal—indirect
PyPIipython—indirect
PyPImeson—indirect
PyPImeson-python—indirect
PyPInbsphinx—indirect
PyPIninja—indirect
PyPIopenpyxl—indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpmw—indirect
PyPIpybind11—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIutm—indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:anuga@4.0.1 pulls in 22 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
certifi2026.10.18indirecthigh22026.10.19

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.

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.