Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 18:56 UTC

audeering / audbackend

Manage file storage on different backends

PythonCustom license★ 3 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗

audeering/audbackend holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (31/100). It was last updated today. 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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

audEERINGOrganization

123 followers50 public repossince Jul 2017

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	Tags
PyPI	audbackend	3.0.2	10,254	34	0 days ago	filesystem minio s3

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
10.4/36	Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18	Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	28
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	15

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~66.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	34
latest_release_tag	v3.0.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	66.7

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?

41Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

5Critical

How it's scored

4.9/60	Stars — 3 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	3
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

64Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
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	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

67Good

How it's scored

53.5/80	Monthly downloads — 10,254 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	audbackend
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	10,254
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?

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

28At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
2.7/13.5	Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	2
top_contributor_share	0.707

Issue & PR responsiveness

87Excellent

How it's scored

38.5/42	Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
28.4/30	PR acceptance — 197/208 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	197
open_issues	8
closed_issues	87
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.916
closed_unmerged_prs	11
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

87Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
15.1/25	Owner reach — 123 followers of audeering
24.4/25	Track record — 50 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	123
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	audeering
public_repos	50
account_age_days	3,297

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 34 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	audbackend
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://audeering.github.io/audbackend/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	artifactory, filesystem, minio, s3
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://audeering.github.io/audbackend/
docs_site	https://audeering.github.io/audbackend/
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?

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate

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
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 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
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

31At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

45Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
4/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

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	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

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 — 0/32 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	44,210
source_files_sampled	32
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

3GitHub stars

2contributors

28commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

34releases

1bus factor

8open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

deps.dev does not index pypi:audbackend@3.0.2; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

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 · 2026-07-20 18:56 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 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
6	Code-Review	Found 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 7 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
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	10 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
4	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	audeer	`>=2.3.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pywin32	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	stream-unzip	`>=0.0.101`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	audeer	`—`	direct
PyPI	stream-unzip	`—`	direct
PyPI	minio	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools-scm	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-audeering-theme	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.16.0 — 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