Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 23:11 UTC

c4road / earningspy

Your bot's best friend.

PythonMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

c4road/earningspy holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
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.

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

Ownership

Alberto J. RinconesPersonal account
2 followers57 public repossince Oct 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 publishTags
PyPIearningspy0.1.35-2810 days agoearningsfinanceaiscraperpeadquant

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

68Good
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 10 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume — 87 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year87
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 26 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv0.1.35
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases16.5
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
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
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
29.2/30PR acceptance — 35/36 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs35
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

48Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of c4road
24.8/25Track record — 57 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginc4road
public_repos57
account_age_days3,246
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 10 days ago
20/20Version history — 28 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesearningspy
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak
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 — 8 out of 8 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 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 41 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

52Moderate
How it's scored
5.2/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 6 affected: aiohttp 3.12.15 (critical 9.1), lxml 6.0.0 (high 7.5), soupsieve 2.7.0 (high 7.5), +3 more
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
21.4/40No advisories left outstanding — 5 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 260 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories82
affected_packages6
assessed_packages31
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 3, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages6
Matched the pypi:earningspy@0.1.35 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 31 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.

38Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

13Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.3/40Legible commit history — 25 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.25
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/42 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes43,101
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
1contributors
87commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

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 · 2026-08-22 23:11 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 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 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities41 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.12.15indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs25.3.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.13.4indirect
PyPIbump2version—indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.7.14indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.2indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.0indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcssselect1.3.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.7.0indirect
PyPIidna3.10indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.4.7indirect
PyPIlxml6.0.0indirect
PyPImultidict6.6.3indirect
PyPInarwhals2.21.0indirect
PyPInumpy2.0.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpandas2.3.1indirect
PyPIpip—indirect
PyPIpip-tools—indirect
PyPIpipdeptree—indirect
PyPIplotly6.7.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.3.2indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.4indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.7indirect
PyPItenacity9.1.2indirect
PyPItox—indirect
PyPItqdm4.67.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.14.1indirect
PyPItzdata2025.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.5.0indirect
PyPIuser-agent0.1.10indirect
PyPIyarl1.20.1indirect
Dependency advisories 6

Installing pypi:earningspy@0.1.35 pulls in 31 packages, direct and transitive: 6 carry known advisories, of which 6 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
aiohttp3.12.15directcritical643.14.3
lxml6.0.0directhigh26.1.0
soupsieve2.7.0directhigh42.8.4
urllib32.5.0directhigh82.7.0
idna3.10.0directmoderate23.15
requests2.32.4directmoderate22.33.0

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with c4road/earningspy. Read them side by side →

96alpacahq/alpaca-pyThe Official Python SDK for Alpaca APIExceptional96plotly/dashData Apps & Dashboards for Python. No JavaScript Required.Exceptional94firecrawl/firecrawlThe context API to search, scrape, and interact with the web at scale. 🔥Exceptional94D4Vinci/Scrapling🕷️ An adaptive Web Scraping framework that handles everything from a single request to a full-scale crawl!Exceptional94akfamily/akshareAKShare is an elegant and simple financial data interface library for Python, built for human beings! 开源财经数据接口库Exceptional100wandb/wandbThe AI developer platform. Use Weights & Biases to train and fine-tune models, and manage models from experimentation to production.Exceptional

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.