Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 05:39 UTC

avast / yaramod

Parsing of YARA rules into AST and building new rulesets in C++.

C++ · PythonMIT★ 129 stars⑂ 45 forkssince Dec 2017View on GitHub ↗

avast/yaramod holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Security (52/100). It was last updated 89 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

AvastOrganization · verified domain
311 followers148 public repossince Mar 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIyaramod4.8.13,85612489 days agoparseryara

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

56Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 89 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year23
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push89
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 89 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~270.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv4.8.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release89
mean_days_between_releases270.5
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34.2/60Stars — 129 stars
13.7/25Forks — 45 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks45
stars129
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesreadthedocs.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.8/80Monthly downloads — 3,856 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesyaramod
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,856
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.604
How it's scored
27.3/42Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 176/193 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs176
open_issues35
closed_issues65
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.65
closed_unmerged_prs17
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
17.9/25Owner reach — 311 followers of avast
25/25Track record — 148 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers311
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginavast
public_repos148
account_age_days4,954

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 89 days ago
20/20Version history — 124 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesyaramod
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish89

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
39.5/40Legible commit history — 74 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.74
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — deps/pybind11/noxfile.py, docs/rtd/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — deps/pybind11/pybind11/py.typed, src/python/typings/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesdeps/pybind11/noxfile.py, docs/rtd/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsdeps/pybind11/pybind11/py.typed, src/python/typings/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
51.3/55Manageable file sizes — 16/237 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes926,375
source_files_sampled237
oversized_source_files16
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

129GitHub stars
20contributors
23commits, last 12 months
89days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
35open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 45 ⇿
0Stars
45Forks
29Releases

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.

010203040504522017-122022-052026-09
Major 1Minor 14Patch 13

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 05:38 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
8CI-Tests11 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdocutils—indirect
PyPIpypandoc—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-tabs—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.

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.