Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 15:41 UTC

auspexai / worker

AuspexAI volunteer worker for donating compute to AI research

PythonAGPL-3.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

auspexai/worker holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated 66 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AuspexAIOrganization · verified domain
0 followers9 public repossince Apr 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIauspexai-worker0.2.804807677 days agoai-safetyauspexaidistributed-computeresearchvolunteerworker

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 66 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 185 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year185
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push66
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 77 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.8 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.2.80
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release77
mean_days_between_releases2.8

Community & Adoption

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

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
35.8/80Monthly downloads — 480 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesauspexai-worker
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads480
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
7.1/30PR acceptance — 4/17 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs4
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs13
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of auspexai
8.2/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginauspexai
public_repos9
account_age_days176

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 77 days ago
20/20Version history — 76 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesauspexai-worker
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish77

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

85Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://auspexai.network
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagpl-3-0, ai-safety, volunteer-computing
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://auspexai.network
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

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
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages27
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:auspexai-worker@0.2.80 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 27 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 97 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 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
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.97
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 2/118 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes110,770
source_files_sampled118
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
185commits, last 12 months
66days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 15:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpydantic>=2.5pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.1pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=42pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.27pyproject.toml
PyPIfastapi>=0.115pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.32pyproject.toml
PyPIpyseccomp>=0.1.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:auspexai-worker@0.2.80 pulls in 27 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.

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.