Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 20:54 UTC

astral-sh / ty

An extremely fast Python type checker and language server, written in Rust.

PythonMIT★ 19,701 stars⑂ 331 forkssince May 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

astral-sh/ty holds a health index of 97 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (67/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

97
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

97
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 85 is calibrated to 97 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AstralOrganization · verified domain
10,385 followers89 public repossince Oct 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIty0.0.8139,568,4601221 day agotytypinganalysischeck

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 463 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year463
human_commit_share0.69
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag0.0.81
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases3.5

Community & Adoption

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

94Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 19,701 stars
21/25Forks — 331 forks
9.6/15Watchers — 55 watchers
Inputs used
forks331
stars19,701
watchers55
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 39,568,460 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesty
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads39,568,460
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?

86Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 23% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 54 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled54
top_contributor_share0.23
How it's scored
32/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance — 662/732 decided PRs merged
8.1/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/8 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs662
open_issues905
closed_issues2,882
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d34
prs_decided_30d38
issue_closed_ratio0.761
closed_unmerged_prs70
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d8
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 10,385 followers of astral-sh
20.8/25Track record — 89 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers10,385
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginastral-sh
public_repos89
account_age_days1,430

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 122 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesty
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.astral.sh/ty/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.astral.sh/ty/
docs_sitehttps://docs.astral.sh/ty/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 11/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 35 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_aggregate6.4

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 73 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 67 of 69 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.971
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes845
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — python/ty/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 31 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspython/ty/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.31
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (python/ty/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes32,194
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

19,701GitHub stars
54contributors
463commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
3bus factor
905open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 16 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 331 ⇿
0Stars
331Forks
99Releases

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.

0125250375331332025-052026-012026-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 79

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 20:53 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 11/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 35 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 73

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 73 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.11.0indirect
PyPIanysqlite0.0.5indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.10.5indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.3.3indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.59indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhishel0.1.5indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdownify1.2.3indirect
PyPImarko2.2.1indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdformat1.0.0indirect
PyPImdformat-admon2.1.1indirect
PyPImdformat-gfm1.0.0indirect
PyPImdformat-mkdocs5.3.0indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-git-revision-date-localized-plugin1.5.3indirect
PyPImkdocs-llmstxt0.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-redirects1.2.3indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0indirect
PyPImsgpack1.2.1indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.2indirect
PyPIprek0.4.14indirect
PyPIproperdocs1.6.7indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpydantic2.12.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5indirect
PyPIpygit21.19.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrich14.2.0indirect
PyPIrooster0.1.1indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.3indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9.2indirect
PyPItqdm4.67.1indirect
PyPIty0.0.81indirect
PyPItyper0.20.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 73 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

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.