Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 21:28 UTC

breezedeus / CnSTD

CnSTD: 基于 PyTorch/MXNet 的 中文/英文 场景文字检测(Scene Text Detection)、数学公式检测(Mathematical Formula Detection, MFD)、篇章分析(Layout Analysis)的Python3 包

PythonApache-2.0★ 794 stars⑂ 115 forkssince May 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

breezedeus/CnSTD holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (61/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated 69 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

BreezedeusPersonal account
480 followers49 public repossince Feb 2014

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

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 69 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 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_year22
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push69
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 29 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 69 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~82.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tagv1.2.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release69
mean_days_between_releases82.5

Community & Adoption

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

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47/60Stars — 794 stars
17.1/25Forks — 115 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks115
stars794
watchers12
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

46Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.991
How it's scored
28.8/42Issue resolution — 68% of issues closed
24.4/30PR acceptance — 44/54 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues17
closed_issues37
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.685
closed_unmerged_prs10
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
19.3/25Owner reach — 480 followers of breezedeus
24.4/25Track record — 49 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers480
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginbreezedeus
public_repos49
account_age_days4,589
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.breezedeus.com/article/cnocr
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsobject-detection, pytorch, text-detection, deep-learning, math-formula-detection, ocr, python, scene-text-detection
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.breezedeus.com/article/cnocr
docs_sitehttps://www.breezedeus.com/article/cnocr
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no 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
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 98 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate1.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories177
affected_packages13
assessed_packages65
unassessed_packages23
affected_by_severitycritical 4, high 5, moderate 4
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 65 resolved dependencies against OSV. 23 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.6/40Legible commit history — 48 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.48
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.4/55Manageable file sizes — 2/67 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes85,295
source_files_sampled67
oversized_source_files2
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

794GitHub stars
4contributors
22commits, last 12 months
69days since last push
29releases
1bus factor
17open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-11: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 794 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 792 ★ / 115 ⇿
792Stars
115Forks
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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-11. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

0200400600800792115102020-062023-062026-07
Major 1Minor 1Patch 12

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.8 / 10
1.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 21:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities98 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 88

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 88 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.4.3indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.11.7indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.3.1indirect
PyPIantlr4-python3-runtime4.9.3indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs24.2.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.8.30indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.0indirect
PyPIclick—indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcoloredlogs15.0.1indirect
PyPIcolorlog6.9.0indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.0indirect
PyPIcycler0.12.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIflatbuffers24.3.25indirect
PyPIfonttools4.55.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.5.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2024.10.0indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub—indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub0.26.2indirect
PyPIhumanfriendly10.0indirect
PyPIidna3.10indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.4indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.4.7indirect
PyPIlightning-utilities0.11.9indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.2indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.9.2indirect
PyPImpmath1.3.0indirect
PyPImultidict6.1.0indirect
PyPInetworkx3.2.1indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPInumpy1.26.4indirect
PyPIomegaconf2.3.0indirect
PyPIonnx—indirect
PyPIonnx1.17.0indirect
PyPIonnxruntime1.19.2indirect
PyPIonnxruntime-gpu—indirect
PyPIopencv-python—indirect
PyPIopencv-python4.10.0.84indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpandas2.2.3indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpillow11.0.0indirect
PyPIpip-tools—indirect
PyPIpropcache0.2.0indirect
PyPIprotobuf5.28.3indirect
PyPIpsutil6.1.0indirect
PyPIpy-cpuinfo9.0.0indirect
PyPIpyclipper—indirect
PyPIpyclipper1.3.0.post6indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytorch-lightning—indirect
PyPIpytorch-lightning2.4.0indirect
PyPIpytz2024.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIrapidocr—indirect
PyPIrapidocr3.9.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.3indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIscipy1.13.1indirect
PyPIseaborn—indirect
PyPIseaborn0.13.2indirect
PyPIshapely—indirect
PyPIshapely2.0.6indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPIsympy1.13.1indirect
PyPItorch—indirect
PyPItorch2.5.1indirect
PyPItorchmetrics1.6.0indirect
PyPItorchvision—indirect
PyPItorchvision0.20.1indirect
PyPItqdm—indirect
PyPItqdm4.67.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.12.2indirect
PyPItzdata2024.2indirect
PyPIultralytics—indirect
PyPIultralytics8.3.36indirect
PyPIultralytics-thop2.0.12indirect
PyPIunidecode—indirect
PyPIunidecode1.3.8indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIyarl1.18.0indirect
Dependency advisories 13

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 65 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 13 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 23 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
aiohttp3.11.7indirectcritical663.14.3
onnx1.17.0indirectcritical171.22.0
pillow11.0.0indirectcritical3412.3.0
torch2.5.1indirectcritical222.13.0
click8.1.7indirecthigh18.3.3
jinja23.1.4indirecthigh63.1.6
protobuf5.28.3indirecthigh46.33.5
pytorch-lightning2.4.0indirecthigh32.6.6
urllib32.2.3indirecthigh122.7.0
filelock3.16.1indirectmoderate43.20.3
fonttools4.55.0indirectmoderate24.60.2
idna3.10indirectmoderate23.15
requests2.32.3indirectmoderate42.33.0

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.

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.