Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 21:04 UTC

artefactual-labs / pygfried

pygfried is a CPython extension that brings Siegfried, the Go-based signature file format identification tool, to Python.

Go · Python · CApache-2.0★ 7 stars⑂ 1 forksince Dec 2021View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

#code4lib #digital-preservation #format-identification #pronom #siegfried #python

artefactual-labs/pygfried holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated 4 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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Artefactual LabOrganization

29 followers148 public repossince Apr 2015

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/artefactual-labs/pygfried	v0.17.0	-	21	48 days ago
PyPI	pygfried	0.17.0	552	21	48 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

67Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
8.3/36	Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18	Commit volume — 25 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	25
human_commit_share	0.86
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	12

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 48 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~45.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	12
latest_release_tag	v0.17.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	48
mean_days_between_releases	45.8

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?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

18Critical

How it's scored

12.6/60	Stars — 7 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
5/15	Watchers — 9 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	7
watchers	9
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	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	1
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

46Weak

How it's scored

36.6/80	Monthly downloads — 552 downloads/month across go, pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	github.com/artefactual-labs/pygfried, pygfried
dependents	—
ecosystems	go, pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	552
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
25/30	PR acceptance — 25/30 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	25
open_issues	0
closed_issues	7
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	5
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

66Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
10.6/25	Owner reach — 29 followers of artefactual-labs
25/25	Track record — 148 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	29
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	artefactual-labs
public_repos	148
account_age_days	4,174

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on go, pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 48 days ago
20/20	Version history — 21 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/artefactual-labs/pygfried, pygfried
ecosystems	go, pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	48

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 6 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	code4lib, digital-preservation, format-identification, pronom, siegfried, python
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

57Moderate

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
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 17 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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 — 16 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.7

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	3
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	56
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	moderate 1, unknown 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 56 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

5Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.4/40	Legible commit history — 5 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.102
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

84Excellent

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — pygfried/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 57
8/8	Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 57 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	pygfried/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.14

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/14 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	14,323
source_files_sampled	14
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

7GitHub stars

1contributors

25commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

12releases

1bus factor

0open issues

Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10

5.7aggregate

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 21:04 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9	CI-Tests	17 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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	16 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
9	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/richardlehane/siegfried	`v1.11.6`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.22.0`	go.mod
Go	gotest.tools/v3	`v3.5.2`	go.mod

All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 53 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/richardlehane/siegfried	`v1.11.6`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.22.0`	direct
Go	gotest.tools/v3	`v3.5.2`	direct
Go	github.com/google/go-cmp	`v0.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/richardlehane/characterize	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/richardlehane/match	`v1.0.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/richardlehane/mscfb	`v1.0.7`	indirect
Go	github.com/richardlehane/msoleps	`v1.0.6`	indirect
Go	github.com/richardlehane/xmldetect	`v1.0.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/ross-spencer/spargo	`v0.4.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/ross-spencer/wikiprov	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/image	`v0.44.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.40.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.2`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`49.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.23`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`45.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 56 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
cryptography	`49.0.0`	indirect	moderate	2	`50.0.0`
golang.org/x/image	`v0.44.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.45.0`

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 — Go, PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records