Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 14:42 UTC

beta-team / beta-recsys

Beta-RecSys: Build, Evaluate and Tune Automated Recommender Systems

PythonMIT★ 172 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Mar 2020View on GitHub ↗

beta-team/beta-recsys holds a health index of 30 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (23/100). It was last updated 290 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

beta-teamOrganization

0 followers4 public repossince Mar 2020

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	beta_rec	0.3.2	38	6	2022 days ago	pytorch recommender-system recommendations

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

23At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

4Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 602 daysautomated commits excludedissues left unanswereda published fix left unappliedreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedcontinuous integration brokenOverall rating: At Risk ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

3.6/36	Push recency — last push 290 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	0.97
days_since_last_push	290
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 10 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,713 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~59.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	10
latest_release_tag	v0.3.3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,713
mean_days_between_releases	59.7

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?

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

50Moderate

How it's scored

36.2/60	Stars — 172 stars
12.5/25	Forks — 33 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	33
stars	172
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	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	7
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, codecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

26At Risk

How it's scored

21.2/80	Monthly downloads — 38 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	beta_rec
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	38
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	13
top_contributor_share	0.351

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

34.9/42	Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
26.8/30	PR acceptance — 281/314 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	281
open_issues	21
closed_issues	104
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.832
closed_unmerged_prs	33
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

47Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
0/25	Owner reach — 0 followers of beta-team
17.1/25	Track record — 4 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	0
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	beta-team
public_repos	4
account_age_days	2,372

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 2,022 days ago
20/20	Version history — 6 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	beta_rec
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	2,022

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

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://beta-recsys.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://beta-recsys.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
docs_site	https://beta-recsys.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
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?

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

38Weak

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
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 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
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 93 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	3.8

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

Dependency advisories

34At Risk

How it's scored

5.3/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 4 affected: ray 1.0.1 (critical 9.8), py7zr 0.22.0 (high 8.0), requests 2.24.0 (moderate 6.1), +1 more
7.4/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: idna 2.10.0 (high 7.5), urllib3 1.25.11 (high 8.1)
21.5/40	No advisories left outstanding — 5 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2,311 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	58
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	107
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 3, moderate 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	4

Matched the pypi:beta_rec@0.3.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 107 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.3/40	Legible commit history — 37 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.381
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 3 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	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.03

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 — 0/119 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	39,242
source_files_sampled	119
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples, notebooks

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples, notebooks
has_mcp_signal	no
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

172GitHub stars

13contributors

0commits, last 12 months

290days since last push

10releases

2bus factor

21open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿

0Stars

33Forks

10Releases

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 2Patch 7

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10

3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 14:42 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10	Contributors	project has 7 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
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0	Vulnerabilities	93 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	aiofiles	`—`	indirect
PyPI	aiohttp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	gputil	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	mock	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mock	`4.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	munch	`2.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	nest-asyncio	`—`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`—`	indirect
PyPI	py-cpuinfo	`—`	indirect
PyPI	py7zr	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ray	`2.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.0`	indirect
PyPI	rstcheck	`—`	indirect
PyPI	scikit-learn	`—`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-markdown-tables	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tensorboardx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	torch	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

Installing pypi:beta_rec@0.3.2 pulls in 107 packages, direct and transitive: 6 carry known advisories, of which 4 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
ray	`1.0.1`	direct	critical	21	`2.56.0`
py7zr	`0.22.0`	direct	high	6	`1.1.3`
idna	`2.10.0`	indirect	high	4	`3.15`
urllib3	`1.25.11`	indirect	high	18	`2.7.0`
requests	`2.24.0`	direct	moderate	8	`2.33.0`
pandas	`1.0.3`	direct	unknown	1	`1.0.4`

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