Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 15:08 UTC

awolverp / cachebox

The fastest memoizing and caching Python library written in Rust.

Rust · PythonMIT★ 428 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Feb 2024View on GitHub ↗

awolverp/cachebox holds a health index of 16 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Security (30/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

16
overall / 100
Critical

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.

16
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

A.Wolver.PPersonal account
100 followers16 public repossince Nov 2022

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIcachebox6.2.614,721,403611 day agocachingcachedcacheboxcachein-memory-cachingmemoizing

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume253 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year253
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases55 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~9.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count55
latest_release_tagv6.2.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases9.1
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.7/60Stars428 stars
9.6/25Forks15 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars428
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads14,721,403 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescachebox
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads14,721,403
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.886
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance34/36 decided PRs merged
11.6/13Newcomer PR acceptance8/9 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 7/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs34
open_issues0
closed_issues44
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d8
first_time_prs_decided_30d9
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
14.4/25Owner reach100 followers of awolverp
16.5/25Track record16 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers100
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginawolverp
public_repos16
account_age_days1,383
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history61 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescachebox
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configCargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://awolverp.github.io/cachebox/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscache, cachebox, caching, in-memory-caching, memoization, memoizing, pyo3, python, rust
has_wikino
homepagehttps://awolverp.github.io/cachebox/
docs_sitehttps://awolverp.github.io/cachebox/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 7/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier13
security_posture_before_jurisdiction67
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages102
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 102 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.8/40Legible commit history18 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.184
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configCargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
52.9/55Manageable file sizes2/53 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes193,678
source_files_sampled53
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

428GitHub stars
11contributors
253commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
55releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'cachebox' from its registry
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:cachebox@6.2.6; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
36Releases

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.

03581013151522024-082025-082026-08
Major 2Minor 9Patch 25

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.7 / 10
6.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 15:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests6 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 7/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 6 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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioallocator-api20.4.0Cargo.toml
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.45Cargo.toml
crates.iofastrand2.5.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioparking_lot0.12.5Cargo.toml
crates.iopyo30.29.2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 102

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 96 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioallocator-api20.4.0direct
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4direct
crates.iochrono0.4.45direct
crates.iofastrand2.5.0direct
crates.ioparking_lot0.12.5direct
crates.iopyo30.29.2direct
crates.ioandroid_system_properties0.1.6indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.iobitflags2.13.1indirect
crates.iobumpalo3.20.3indirect
crates.iocc1.4.4indirect
crates.iocore-foundation-sys0.8.7indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.11indirect
crates.iofutures-core0.3.34indirect
crates.iofutures-task0.3.34indirect
crates.iofutures-util0.3.34indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioiana-time-zone0.1.65indirect
crates.ioiana-time-zone-haiku0.1.2indirect
crates.iojs-sys0.3.104indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.189indirect
crates.iolock_api0.4.14indirect
crates.iolog0.4.34indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioparking_lot_core0.9.12indirect
crates.iopin-project-lite0.2.17indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.15.0indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.29.2indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.29.2indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.29.2indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.29.2indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.ioredox_syscall0.5.18indirect
crates.iorustversion1.0.23indirect
crates.ioscopeguard1.2.0indirect
crates.ioshlex2.0.1indirect
crates.ioslab0.4.12indirect
crates.iosmallvec1.15.2indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.5indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.127indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro0.2.127indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro-support0.2.127indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-shared0.2.127indirect
crates.iowindows-core0.62.2indirect
crates.iowindows-implement0.60.2indirect
crates.iowindows-interface0.59.3indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-result0.4.1indirect
crates.iowindows-strings0.5.1indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.165.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImaturin1.14.1indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.6indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpatchelf0.17.2.4indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItypos1.48.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIzizmor1.29.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 102 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 statisticsPyPI.