Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 17:17 UTC

breno-jesus-fernandes / bankai-random-forest

BankaiRF is a high-performance Random Forest powered by a native Rust core and LightGBM-style histograms

Jupyter Notebook · Python · RustGPL-3.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2026View on GitHub ↗

breno-jesus-fernandes/bankai-random-forest holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (70/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (48/100). It was last updated today. 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

Breno FernandesPersonal account
20 followers14 public repossince Sep 2017

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 publish
PyPIbankai-random-forest0.1.0a194,977180 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 179 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year179
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv0.1.0a19
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.9

Community & Adoption

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

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges11
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
49.3/80Monthly downloads — 4,977 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbankai-random-forest
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,977
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?

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 24/24 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 12/12 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs24
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d7
prs_decided_7d7
prs_merged_30d12
prs_decided_30d12
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d12
first_time_prs_decided_30d12
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.5/25Owner reach — 20 followers of breno-jesus-fernandes
20.6/25Track record — 14 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginbreno-jesus-fernandes
public_repos14
account_age_days3,314
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 18 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbankai-random-forest
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
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?

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.7

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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages61
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 61 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 70 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.795
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, crates/xrf/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 12 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crates/xrf/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.12
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Jupyter Notebook without a type-check config
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 1/73 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJupyter Notebook
largest_source_bytes162,304
source_files_sampled73
oversized_source_files1
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 — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
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

0GitHub stars
1contributors
179commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch crates package 'bankai-random-forest' from its registry
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:bankai-random-forest@0.1.0a19; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 17:17 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ionumpy0.29.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopyo30.29.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioxrf—Cargo.toml
PyPInumpy>=2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=2.2.3pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn>=1.9.1,<1.10pyproject.toml
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ionumpy0.29.0direct
crates.iopyo30.29.3direct
PyPInumpy2.3.5direct
PyPInumpy2.4.6direct
PyPInumpy2.5.3direct
PyPIpandas3.0.6direct
PyPIscikit-learn1.9.1direct
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.189indirect
crates.iomatrixmultiply0.3.11indirect
crates.iondarray0.17.2indirect
crates.ionum-complex0.4.6indirect
crates.ionum-integer0.1.47indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.15.0indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic-util0.2.8indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.29.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.29.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.29.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.29.3indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.iorawpointer0.2.1indirect
crates.iorustc-hash2.1.3indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.5indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.26indirect
PyPIbankai-random-forest0.1.0a18indirect
PyPIcloudpickle3.1.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.2indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjoblib1.6.0indirect
PyPIlightgbm4.7.0indirect
PyPIllvmlite0.45.1indirect
PyPIllvmlite0.49.0indirect
PyPImaturin1.15.0indirect
PyPImemory-profiler0.61.0indirect
PyPInarwhals2.26.0indirect
PyPInumba0.62.1indirect
PyPInumba0.67.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIscipy1.17.1indirect
PyPIscipy1.18.1indirect
PyPIshap0.51.0indirect
PyPIshap0.52.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIslicer0.0.8indirect
PyPIthreadpoolctl3.7.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.4indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 61 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 statistics — PyPI.