Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-01 22:12 UTC

bytedance / videx

Virtual/Hypothetical Index for MySQL/MariaDB

Python · C++Custom license★ 149 stars⑂ 26 forkssince Mar 2025View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

bytedance/videx holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (70/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated 33 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Bytedance Inc.Organization

18,897 followers417 public repossince Apr 2013

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	videx	0.0.3	-	3	533 days ago	index database what-if mysql virtual-index

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

47Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

44Weak

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 33 days ago
9.7/36	Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
16.3/18	Commit volume — 65 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	65
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	33
active_weeks_last_year	14

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 1 releases published
7.2/36	Release recency — latest release 491 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	1
latest_release_tag	v0.1.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	491
mean_days_between_releases	—

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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

53Moderate

How it's scored

35.2/60	Stars — 149 stars
11.7/25	Forks — 26 forks
5.8/15	Watchers — 12 watchers

Inputs used

forks	26
stars	149
watchers	12
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

51Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	no
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

57Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.495

Issue & PR responsiveness

63Moderate

How it's scored

21.8/42	Issue resolution — 52% of issues closed
25.9/30	PR acceptance — 32/37 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

merged_prs	32
open_issues	25
closed_issues	27
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.519
closed_unmerged_prs	5
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

80Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 18,897 followers of bytedance
25/25	Track record — 417 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	18,897
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	bytedance
public_repos	417
account_age_days	4,887

Package maintenance

71Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 533 days ago
12/20	Version history — 3 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	videx
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	533

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

56Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
8/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/bytedance/videx/blob/main/README.md
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	database, mysql, virtual-index
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	https://github.com/bytedance/videx/blob/main/README.md
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?

34At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak

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
1/2.5	CI-Tests — 4 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
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 — 20 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	3.5

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

Dependency advisories

29At Risk

How it's scored

3.2/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 9 affected: pyarrow 12.0.1 (critical 9.8), pymysql 0.9.3 (critical 9.8), gunicorn 21.2.0 (high 8.2), +6 more
10/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: urllib3 1.26.20 (high 7.5)
15.4/40	No advisories left outstanding — 9 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,198 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	43
affected_packages	10
assessed_packages	50
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 2, high 4, moderate 3, low 1
direct_affected_packages	9

Matched the pypi:videx@0.0.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 50 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

32At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
16.5/40	Legible commit history — 31 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.31
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

32At Risk

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/63 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	76,224
source_files_sampled	63
oversized_source_files	2

Key facts

149GitHub stars

8contributors

65commits, last 12 months

33days since last push

1releases

2bus factor

25open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'videx' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 26 ⇿

0Stars

26Forks

1Releases

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 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10

3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-01 22:11 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4	CI-Tests	4 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5	Code-Review	Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10	Contributors	project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
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	20 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 25

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	DBUtils	`==3.0.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	msgpack	`==1.0.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	numpy	`==1.24.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pandas	`==2.0.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyarrow	`==14.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	PyMySQL	`==1.1.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`==2.29.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	SQLAlchemy	`==2.0.18`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	dataclasses-json	`==0.5.13`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`==6.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tqdm	`==4.65.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	matplotlib	`==3.7.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Flask	`==2.3.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-restx	`==1.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	gunicorn	`~=21.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psutil	`==5.9.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	retrying	`==1.3.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	setuptools	`==75.6.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Werkzeug	`==3.1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyDes	`~=2.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cachetools	`~=5.3.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	estndv	`==0.0.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	sqlglot	`==25.4.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`==2.10.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	scipy	`==1.13.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 25 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	cachetools	`—`	direct
PyPI	dataclasses-json	`0.5.13`	direct
PyPI	dbutils	`3.0.3`	direct
PyPI	estndv	`0.0.2`	direct
PyPI	flask	`2.3.3`	direct
PyPI	flask-restx	`1.3.0`	direct
PyPI	gunicorn	`—`	direct
PyPI	matplotlib	`3.7.2`	direct
PyPI	msgpack	`1.0.5`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`1.24.4`	direct
PyPI	pandas	`2.0.3`	direct
PyPI	psutil	`5.9.5`	direct
PyPI	pyarrow	`14.0.1`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.10.4`	direct
PyPI	pydes	`—`	direct
PyPI	pymysql	`1.1.1`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.1`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.29.0`	direct
PyPI	retrying	`1.3.4`	direct
PyPI	scipy	`1.13.1`	direct
PyPI	setuptools	`75.6.0`	direct
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.0.18`	direct
PyPI	sqlglot	`25.4.1`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`4.65.2`	direct
PyPI	werkzeug	`3.1.3`	direct

Dependency advisories 10

Installing pypi:videx@0.0.3 pulls in 50 packages, direct and transitive: 10 carry known advisories, of which 9 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pyarrow	`12.0.1`	direct	critical	3	`17.0.0`
pymysql	`0.9.3`	direct	critical	2	`1.1.1`
gunicorn	`21.2.0`	direct	high	4	`22.0.0`
msgpack	`1.0.5`	direct	high	2	`1.2.1`
setuptools	`75.6.0`	direct	high	4	`83.0.0`
urllib3	`1.26.20`	indirect	high	10	`2.7.0`
flask	`2.3.3`	direct	moderate	2	`3.1.3`
requests	`2.29.0`	direct	moderate	8	`2.33.0`
werkzeug	`3.1.3`	direct	moderate	6	`3.1.6`
tqdm	`4.65.2`	direct	low	2	`4.66.3`

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