Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 22:20 UTC

bartfeenstra / betty

Betty visualizes and publishes your family history by building interactive, encyclopedia-like genealogy websites out of your Gramps and GEDCOM family trees

PythonGPL-3.0★ 124 stars⑂ 20 forkssince Feb 2019View on GitHub ↗

KindPluginCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#genealogy #gramps #ancestry #static-site-generator #family-tree #betty #gedcom #docker #gramps-xml #gedcom-files

bartfeenstra/betty holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (100/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Bart FeenstraPersonal account

40 followers97 public repossince Aug 2010

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	betty	0.4.45	-	166	53 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

100Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
36/36	Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,143 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,143
human_commit_share	0.99
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	52

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~7.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	0.5.0a49
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	5
mean_days_between_releases	7.7

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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

45Weak

How it's scored

33.9/60	Stars — 124 stars
10.7/25	Forks — 20 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	20
stars	124
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, codecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

32At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
12.2/13.5	Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	9
top_contributor_share	0.981

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good

How it's scored

37.7/42	Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
26.8/30	PR acceptance — 3,057/3,420 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	3,057
open_issues	131
closed_issues	1,137
prs_merged_7d	13
prs_decided_7d	18
prs_merged_30d	18
prs_decided_30d	25
issue_closed_ratio	0.897
closed_unmerged_prs	363
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.6/25	Owner reach — 40 followers of bartfeenstra
25/25	Track record — 97 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	40
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	bartfeenstra
public_repos	97
account_age_days	5,864

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 53 days ago
20/20	Version history — 166 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	betty
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	53

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

85Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .ruff.toml, eslint.config.js
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://betty.readthedocs.io
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	genealogy, gramps, ancestry, static-site-generator, family-tree, betty, gedcom, docker, gramps-xml, gedcom-files
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://betty.readthedocs.io
docs_site	https://betty.readthedocs.io
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?

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5.6

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

Dependency advisories

67Good

How it's scored

9.5/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: pillow 11.3.0 (critical 9.1)
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
32.6/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 216 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	36
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	55
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Matched the pypi:betty@0.4.45 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 55 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

19Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.9/40	Legible commit history — 35 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.354
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .ruff.toml, eslint.config.js
11/11	Static type checking — betty/py.typed, tsconfig.json
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

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	betty/py.typed, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.01

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (betty/py.typed, tsconfig.json)
54.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/1,158 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	276,835
source_files_sampled	1,158
oversized_source_files	2

Key facts

124GitHub stars

9contributors

1,143commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

131open issues

npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch npm package '@betty.py/betty.project' from its registry
pypi download statistics for 'betty' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 20 ⇿

0Stars

20Forks

85Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 1Patch 42

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10

5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 22:19 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
9	CI-Tests	28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 23

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	aiofiles	`~= 25.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiohttp	`~= 3.12`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiohttp-client-cache	`~= 0.14`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiosqlite	`~= 0.21`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	babel	`~= 2.16`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	docutils	`~= 0.21`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	geopy	`~= 2.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	jinja2	`~= 3.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	jsonschema	`~= 4.23`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	lxml	`~= 7.0.0b1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	markupsafe	`~= 3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pdf2image	`~= 1.17`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	polib	`~= 1.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Pillow	`~= 12.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	platformdirs	`~= 4.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`~= 6.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	referencing	`~= 0.37.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`~= 15.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich-argparse	`~= 1.7`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	shibuya	`== 2026.7.12`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	sphinx	`~= 8.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	sphinx-design	`~= 0.7.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`~= 4.16`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 94

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 23 direct and 71 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	aiofiles	`—`	direct
PyPI	aiohttp	`—`	direct
PyPI	aiohttp-client-cache	`—`	direct
PyPI	aiosqlite	`—`	direct
PyPI	babel	`—`	direct
PyPI	docutils	`—`	direct
PyPI	geopy	`—`	direct
PyPI	jinja2	`—`	direct
PyPI	jsonschema	`—`	direct
PyPI	lxml	`—`	direct
PyPI	markupsafe	`—`	direct
PyPI	pdf2image	`—`	direct
PyPI	pillow	`—`	direct
PyPI	platformdirs	`—`	direct
PyPI	polib	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	direct
PyPI	referencing	`—`	direct
PyPI	rich	`—`	direct
PyPI	rich-argparse	`—`	direct
PyPI	shibuya	`2026.7.12`	direct
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	direct
PyPI	sphinx-design	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
npm	@babel/core	`^7.26.0`	indirect
npm	@babel/preset-env	`^7.26.0`	indirect
npm	@babel/preset-typescript	`^7.26.0`	indirect
npm	@betty.py/betty	`*`	indirect
npm	@fontsource/noto-sans	`^5.1.1`	indirect
npm	@fontsource/noto-sans-arabic	`^5.1.1`	indirect
npm	@fontsource/noto-sans-hebrew	`^5.1.1`	indirect
npm	@popperjs/core	`^2.11.8`	indirect
npm	@stylistic/eslint-plugin	`^5.0.0`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`*`	indirect
npm	@types/webpack	`^5.28.5`	indirect
npm	babel-loader	`^10.0.0`	indirect
npm	bootstrap	`^5.3.3`	indirect
npm	core-js	`^3.39.0`	indirect
npm	css-loader	`^7.1.2`	indirect
npm	css-minimizer-webpack-plugin	`^7.0.0`	indirect
npm	cytoscape	`^3.30.3`	indirect
npm	cytoscape-dagre	`^2.5.0`	indirect
npm	eslint	`^9.24.0`	indirect
npm	eslint-plugin-import	`^2.31.0`	indirect
npm	eslint-plugin-n	`^18.0.1`	indirect
npm	eslint-plugin-promise	`^7.2.1`	indirect
npm	mini-css-extract-plugin	`^2.9.2`	indirect
npm	ol	`^10.4.0`	indirect
npm	postcss-loader	`^8.1.1`	indirect
npm	resolve-url-loader	`^5.0.0`	indirect
npm	sass	`^1.81.0`	indirect
npm	sass-loader	`^16.0.3`	indirect
npm	stylelint	`^17.00.0`	indirect
npm	stylelint-config-standard	`^40.0.0`	indirect
npm	stylelint-config-standard-scss	`^17.0.0`	indirect
npm	stylelint-no-unsupported-browser-features	`^8.0.2`	indirect
npm	stylelint-scss	`^7.0.0`	indirect
npm	swagger-ui	`^5.27.1, <5.28`	indirect
npm	terser-webpack-plugin	`^5.3.10`	indirect
npm	typescript	`^5.6.3`	indirect
npm	typescript-eslint	`^8.29.1`	indirect
npm	webpack	`^5.96.1`	indirect
npm	webpack-cli	`^6.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	aioresponses	`—`	indirect
PyPI	build	`—`	indirect
PyPI	codecov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`—`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`—`	indirect
PyPI	puremagic	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-aioresponses	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-order	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-playwright-asyncio	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-repeat	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`—`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	slotscheck	`—`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ty	`0.0.80`	indirect
PyPI	types-babel	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-docutils	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-jsonschema	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-lxml	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-polib	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`—`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`—`	indirect
PyPI	yappi	`—`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:betty@0.4.45 pulls in 55 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pillow	`11.3.0`	direct	critical	36	`12.3.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records