flake8 plugin which checks for misuse of `sys.version` or `sys.version_info`
asottile-archive/flake8-2020 holds a health index of 16 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (64/100) and lowest on Vitality (13/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.
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.
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | flake8_2020points to another repo — not scored | 1.8.1 | 54,829 | 12 | 1155 days ago |
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.
How abandonment is assessed| 0/36 | Push recency — last push 916 days ago |
| 0/36 | Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits |
| 0/18 | Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived |
| commits_last_year | 0 |
| human_commit_share | 0.58 |
| days_since_last_push | 916 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 0 |
| 16.2/27 | Ships releases — 12 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| 0/36 | Release recency — latest release 1,155 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~153.5 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
| releases_count | 12 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.8.1 |
| releases_from_tags | yes |
| days_since_latest_release | 1,155 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 153.5 |
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
| 29.3/60 | Stars — 65 stars |
| 4/25 | Forks — 4 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 1 watchers |
| forks | 4 |
| stars | 65 |
| watchers | 1 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (MIT) |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | 1 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | github.com |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 1.1/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 95% of commits |
| 5.4/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 4 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 36 contributing companies or organizations |
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 4 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.951 |
| 42/42 | Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed |
| 28.5/30 | PR acceptance — 129/136 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| merged_prs | 129 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 11 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 1 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 7 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain |
| 6.5/25 | Owner reach — 7 followers of asottile-archive |
| 25/25 | Track record — 67 public repos, account ~8 yr old |
| followers | 7 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | asottile-archive |
| public_repos | 67 |
| account_age_days | 2,974 |
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 1 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — tox.ini |
| 9.6/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | yes |
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 1 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
| topics | flake8 |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | yes |
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
| 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 |
| 0/2.5 | CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 36 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — project is archived |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 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 |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 16 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 2 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 3.2 |
| 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 |
| source | osv |
| advisories | 0 |
| affected_packages | 0 |
| assessed_packages | 4 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | none |
| direct_affected_packages | 0 |
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.
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 50 of 58 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
| has_llms_txt | no |
| legible_history_share | 0.862 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — tox.ini |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 0/10 | Reproducible environment |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | — |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB |
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | 6,657 |
| source_files_sampled | 4 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
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.
Each point covers 4 days.
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 0 | CI-Tests | 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0 | Code-Review | Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 36 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 0 | Maintained | project is archived |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not 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 |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | flake8 | >=5 | setup.cfg |
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | covdefaults | — | indirect |
| PyPI | coverage | — | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | — | indirect |
Installing pypi:flake8_2020@1.8.1 pulls in 4 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.
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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.