Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 00:08 UTC

cedricbonhomme / newspipe

A self-hosted news reader.

Python · HTMLAGPL-3.0★ 493 stars⑂ 47 forkssince Dec 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

cedricbonhomme/newspipe holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated 11 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Cédric BonhommePersonal account
247 followers52 public repossince Nov 2010@CIRCL

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
PyPINewspipepoints to another repo — not scored0.1.0-11063 days agonewspipe

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 11 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume172 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year172
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push11
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases26 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 11 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~107 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv12.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases107
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.7/60Stars493 stars
13.9/25Forks47 forks
6.4/15Watchers15 watchers
Inputs used
forks47
stars493
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 92% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth7 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.922
How it's scored
41.1/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance53/62 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs53
open_issues1
closed_issues46
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.979
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
17.2/25Owner reach247 followers of cedricbonhomme
24.6/25Track record52 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers247
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logincedricbonhomme
public_repos52
account_age_days5,735
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.newspipe.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnews-aggregator, news-reader, rss
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.newspipe.org
docs_sitehttps://www.newspipe.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0.8/7.5Vulnerabilities9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,853
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json, poetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/99 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes15,767
source_files_sampled99
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

493GitHub stars
7contributors
172commits, last 12 months
11days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • pypi package 'Newspipe' points at a different repository (https://github.com/Nekmo/newspipe/); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 00:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 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 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
1Vulnerabilities9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 37
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@popperjs/core^2.11.8package.json
npmbootstrap^5.3.8package.json
npmbootstrap-icons^1.13.1package.json
npmchart.js^4.5.1package.json
npmchartjs-plugin-datalabels^2.2.0package.json
npmluxon^3.7.2package.json
npmmoment^2.30.1package.json
PyPIpyvulnerabilitylookup(>=2.2.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp(>=3.14.1)pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests(>=2.32.5)pyproject.toml
PyPIchardet(>=5.2.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests-futures(>=1.0.2)pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4(>=4.12.3)pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml(>=6.1.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIopml(>=0.5)pyproject.toml
PyPISQLAlchemy(>=2.0.36)pyproject.toml
PyPIalembic(>=1.14.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask(>=3.1.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-SQLAlchemy(>=3.0.3)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-Login(>=0.6.3)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-Principal(>=0.4.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-WTF(>=1.1.1)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-RESTful(>=0.3.10)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-paginate(>=2024.4.12)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-Babel(>=4.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask-Migrate(>=3.0.1)pyproject.toml
PyPIWTForms(>=3.1.1)pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil(>=2.8.2)pyproject.toml
PyPIpsycopg2-binary(>=2.9.10)pyproject.toml
PyPIflask-talisman(>=1.1.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIfeedparser(>=6.0.12)pyproject.toml
PyPImypy(>=1.13.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIldap3(>=2.9.1)pyproject.toml
PyPIpyvulnerabilitylookup(>=2.2.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIbleach(>=6.2.0,<7.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIpyotp(>=2.10.0,<3.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIqrcode(>=8.2,<9.0)pyproject.toml
All dependencies 114

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 36 direct and 78 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@popperjs/core2.11.8direct
npmbootstrap5.3.8direct
npmbootstrap-icons1.13.1direct
npmchart.js4.5.1direct
npmchartjs-plugin-datalabels2.2.0direct
npmluxon3.7.2direct
npmmoment2.30.1direct
PyPIaiohttp3.14.1direct
PyPIalembic1.18.5direct
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIbleach6.4.0direct
PyPIchardet7.4.3direct
PyPIfeedparser6.0.12direct
PyPIflask3.1.3direct
PyPIflask-babel4.0.0direct
PyPIflask-login0.6.3direct
PyPIflask-migrate4.1.0direct
PyPIflask-paginate2024.4.12direct
PyPIflask-principal0.4.0direct
PyPIflask-restful0.3.10direct
PyPIflask-sqlalchemy3.1.1direct
PyPIflask-talisman1.1.0direct
PyPIflask-wtf1.3.0direct
PyPIldap32.9.1direct
PyPIlxml6.1.1direct
PyPImypy2.1.0direct
PyPIopml0.5direct
PyPIpsycopg2-binary2.9.12direct
PyPIpyotp2.10.0direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIpyvulnerabilitylookup4.4.0direct
PyPIqrcode8.2direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIrequests-futures1.0.2direct
PyPIsqlalchemy2.0.51direct
PyPIwtforms3.2.2direct
npm@kurkle/color0.3.4indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.2indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIaniso860110.0.1indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIboolean-py5.0indirect
PyPIcachecontrol0.14.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcyclonedx-python-lib11.11.0indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.4indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.5.3indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPIlicense-expression30.4.4indirect
PyPImako1.3.12indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImsgpack1.2.1indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackageurl-python0.17.6indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpillow12.2.0indirect
PyPIpip26.1.2indirect
PyPIpip-api0.0.34indirect
PyPIpip-audit2.10.1indirect
PyPIpip-requirements-parser32.0.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit3.8.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.2indirect
PyPIpy-serializable2.1.0indirect
PyPIpyasn10.6.3indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpydot4.0.1indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.4.2indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpytz2026.2indirect
PyPIpyupgrade3.21.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1indirect
PyPIsgmllib3k1.0.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPIsqlalchemy-schemadisplay2.0indirect
PyPItokenize-rt6.2.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20260518indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.5.1indirect
PyPIwebencodings0.5.1indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.8indirect
PyPIyarl1.24.2indirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.