Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-01 03:15 UTC

canonical / operator

Pure Python framework for writing Juju charms.

PythonApache-2.0★ 268 stars⑂ 139 forkssince Oct 2019View on GitHub ↗

canonical/operator holds a health index of 98 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (79/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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 88 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CanonicalOrganization · verified domain

4,095 followers2,496 public repossince Jul 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	ops	3.8.3	413,221	84	0 days ago	—
PyPI	ops-scenario	8.8.3	88,361	101	0 days ago	juju test
PyPI	ops-tracing	3.8.3	24,799	32	0 days ago	—

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

97Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.2/36	Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 416 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	416
human_commit_share	0.65
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	48

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 80 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~25.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	80
latest_release_tag	3.8.3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	25.8

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?

79Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate

How it's scored

39.4/60	Stars — 268 stars
17.8/25	Forks — 139 forks
6.4/15	Watchers — 15 watchers

Inputs used

forks	139
stars	268
watchers	15
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	1
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

95Exceptional

How it's scored

76.3/80	Monthly downloads — 526,381 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	ops, ops-scenario, ops-tracing
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	526,381
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?

85Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

65Good

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 27% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 75 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	75
top_contributor_share	0.274

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent

How it's scored

39.8/42	Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
25.3/30	PR acceptance — 1,567/1,855 decided PRs merged
3.2/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 21/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	1,567
open_issues	46
closed_issues	834
prs_merged_7d	7
prs_decided_7d	8
prs_merged_30d	18
prs_decided_30d	27
issue_closed_ratio	0.948
closed_unmerged_prs	288
first_time_authors_30d	3
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	4

Ownership & stewardship

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 4,095 followers of canonical
25/25	Track record — 2,496 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	4,095
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	canonical
public_repos	2,496
account_age_days	2,631

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 101 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	ops, ops-scenario, ops-tracing
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 25 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.autopep8]), ruff.toml, tox.ini, tracing/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

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://canonical.com/juju/docs/ops/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	juju, charms, python
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://canonical.com/juju/docs/ops/
docs_site	https://canonical.com/juju/docs/ops/
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?

82Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

78Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: InProgress
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 21/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 16 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	7.7

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

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	16
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	112
unassessed_packages	33
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 1
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 112 resolved dependencies against OSV. 33 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.

96Exceptional · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://canonical.com/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 65 of 65 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://canonical.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	6,252

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

97Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.autopep8]), ruff.toml, tox.ini, tracing/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — ops/py.typed, testing/src/scenario/py.typed, tracing/ops_tracing/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 32 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 35 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
7/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	ops/py.typed, testing/src/scenario/py.typed, tracing/ops_tracing/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.32
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.35

Code legibility for models

79Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (ops/py.typed, testing/src/scenario/py.typed, tracing/ops_tracing/py.typed)
52/55	Manageable file sizes — 10/181 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	281,309
source_files_sampled	181
oversized_source_files	10

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

268GitHub stars

75contributors

416commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

80releases

2bus factor

46open 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:ops@3.8.3; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 139 ⇿

0Stars

139Forks

79Releases

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 3Minor 41Patch 29

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.7 / 10

7.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-01 03:14 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
4	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: InProgress
9	Code-Review	Found 21/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10	Contributors	project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
7	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	16 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 10

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	PyYAML	`==6.*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	websocket-client	`==1.*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`~=1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ops	`==3.8.3`	testing/pyproject.toml
PyPI	PyYAML	`>=6.0.1`	testing/pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`>=4.9.0`	testing/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`~=1.0`	tracing/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk	`~=1.30`	tracing/pyproject.toml
PyPI	ops	`==3.8.3`	tracing/pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	tracing/pyproject.toml

All dependencies 145

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 24 direct and 121 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`—`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.34.1`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.36.0`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.42.1`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.44.0`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk	`—`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk	`1.44.0`	direct
PyPI	ops	`—`	direct
PyPI	ops	`3.7.0`	direct
PyPI	ops	`3.8.0.dev0`	direct
PyPI	ops	`3.8.1`	direct
PyPI	ops	`3.8.3`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.12.5`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.3`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.4`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.2`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.14.0`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	websocket-client	`1.8.0`	direct
PyPI	websocket-client	`1.9.0`	direct
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	argon2-cffi	`25.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	argon2-cffi-bindings	`25.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	astroid	`4.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	canonical-sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.10.5`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charmlibs-apt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charmlibs-pathops	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	codespell	`2.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	codespell	`2.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cosl	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`—`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.5`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	dill	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	fastapi-demo	`0.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`7.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpbin-demo	`0.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.27.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`8.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	jubilant	`1.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	jubilant	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	jubilant-backports	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	minio	`7.2.20`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`—`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-semantic-conventions	`0.65b0`	indirect
PyPI	ops-scenario	`8.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	ops-scenario	`8.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	ops-scenario	`8.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	ops-tracing	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ops-tracing	`3.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`—`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	py-cpuinfo2	`10.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pycryptodome	`3.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.41.5`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.3`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygithub	`2.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pylint	`4.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	pynacl	`1.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.408`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.411`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-benchmark	`5.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-jubilant	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-jubilant	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.33.1`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rst2html	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ruamel-yaml	`0.18.6`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.11`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.4`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autobuild	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-config-options	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-contributor-listing	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-design	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-filtered-toctree	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-last-updated-by-git	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-llm	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-notfound-page	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-related-links	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rerediraffe	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-reredirects	`0.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-roles	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-sitemap	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-tabs	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-terminal	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-ubuntu-images	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-youtube-links	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jquery	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-mermaid	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-svg2pdfconverter	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxext-opengraph	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tenacity	`9.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	test-hookcmds	`0.0.0.dev0`	indirect
PyPI	tinyproxy	`0.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260815`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	vale	`3.13.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	zizmor	`1.29.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 112 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 33 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pyjwt	`2.13.0`	indirect	critical	13	`2.15.0`
urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect	high	3	`2.8.0`

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.

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