Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-10 06:37 UTC

btclib-org / btclib

A Python library for 'bitcoin cryptography'

PythonMIT★ 113 stars⑂ 48 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗

#bitcoin #cryptography #elliptic-curves #ecdsa #schnorr #electrum #base58 #bech32 #segwit #message-signing #bip340 #taproot #musig2 #secp256k1 #bitcoin-script #merkle-proof #rfc-6979 #bip158 #bip324 #frost

btclib-org/btclib holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (91/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (65/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Exceptional

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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

btclibOrganization

2 followers14 public repossince Jun 2019

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	btclib	2026.10.9	11,999	40	0 days ago	bitcoin cryptography elliptic-curves secp256k1 ecdsa schnorr bip340 musig2 frost electrum taproot segwit base58 bech32 message-signing rfc-6979 merkle-proof bitcoin-script bip324 bip158

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
7.6/36	Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,656 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,656
human_commit_share	0.94
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	11

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 37 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~1.8 days
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	37
latest_release_tag	v2026.10.9
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	1.8

Community & Adoption

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

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

50Moderate

How it's scored

33.2/60	Stars — 113 stars
13.9/25	Forks — 48 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	48
stars	113
watchers	4
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	27
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

68Good

How it's scored

54.4/80	Monthly downloads — 11,999 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	btclib
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	11,999
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)

34At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 92% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	20
top_contributor_share	0.925

Issue & PR responsiveness

85Excellent

How it's scored

41.4/42	Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
28.8/30	PR acceptance — 1,406/1,466 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	1,406
open_issues	16
closed_issues	1,114
prs_merged_7d	48
prs_decided_7d	48
prs_merged_30d	57
prs_decided_30d	57
issue_closed_ratio	0.986
closed_unmerged_prs	60
first_time_authors_30d	3
first_time_prs_merged_30d	3
first_time_prs_decided_30d	3

Ownership & stewardship

54Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
3.4/25	Owner reach — 2 followers of btclib-org
20.6/25	Track record — 14 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	btclib-org
public_repos	14
account_age_days	2,663

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 40 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	btclib
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 20 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 30 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	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://btclib.readthedocs.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 20 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	bitcoin, cryptography, elliptic-curves, ecdsa, schnorr, electrum, base58, bech32, segwit, message-signing, bip340, taproot, musig2, secp256k1, bitcoin-script, merkle-proof, rfc-6979, bip158, bip324, frost
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://btclib.readthedocs.io/
docs_site	https://btclib.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?

89Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

86Excellent

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
1.8/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Silver
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
7.5/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	8.6

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	120
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 120 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.

89Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 94 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	6,768

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

94Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — src/btclib/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 85 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/btclib/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.85
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.05

Code legibility for models

81Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/btclib/py.typed)
54.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 3/253 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	90,954
source_files_sampled	253
oversized_source_files	3

Key facts

113GitHub stars

20contributors

1,656commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

37releases

1bus factor

16open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:btclib@2026.10.9; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 48 ⇿

0Stars

48Forks

34Releases

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 0Patch 34

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.6 / 10

8.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-10 06:36 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9	CI-Tests	27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
7	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: Silver
1	Code-Review	Found 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
4	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
9	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
10	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	bitcoin-core-rpc	`>=2026.9.29`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	btclib-ecc	`>=2026.10.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`>=4.10`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 120

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 117 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	bitcoin-core-rpc	`2026.10.4`	direct
PyPI	btclib-ecc	`2026.10.2`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	accessible-pygments	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.14.4`	indirect
PyPI	aiosignal	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anybadge	`1.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	btclib	`2026.10.9`	indirect
PyPI	btclib-secp256k1	`0.8.0.10`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	check-sdist	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	check-wheel-contents	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cosmic-ray	`8.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.16.2`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	decorator	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	exit-codes	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	frozenlist	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2025.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	gitdb	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	gitpython	`3.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	hypothesis	`6.168.5`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.20`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.20`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`9.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.7`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	parso	`0.8.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.12.3`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	propcache	`0.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.5`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.5`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyroma	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-randomly	`5.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-timeout	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`46.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.10`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`84.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	smmap	`5.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.10`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-basic-ng	`1.0.0b2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	stevedore	`5.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	toml	`0.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	trove-classifiers	`2026.9.21.13`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	uv-build	`0.12.23`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.14.5`	indirect
PyPI	wheel-filename	`1.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.25.1`	indirect
PyPI	yattag	`1.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 120 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.

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