Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 11:35 UTC

chemelli74 / aiovodafone

Python library to control Vodafone Station

PythonApache-2.0★ 15 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Jun 2023View on GitHub ↗

chemelli74/aiovodafone holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (55/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Simone ChemelliPersonal account
72 followers30 public repossince Nov 2019

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 publish
PyPIaiovodafone3.3.736,293550 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 351 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year351
human_commit_share0.2
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 56 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count56
latest_release_tagv3.3.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases18.4

Community & Adoption

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

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.6/60Stars — 15 stars
9/25Forks — 13 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks13
stars15
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
60.8/80Monthly downloads — 36,293 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesaiovodafone
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads36,293
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.902
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance — 659/687 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs659
open_issues3
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs28
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.4/25Owner reach — 72 followers of chemelli74
22.9/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers72
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginchemelli74
public_repos30
account_age_days2,540
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 55 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaiovodafone
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), ruff.toml
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
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?

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 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 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.3

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages33
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 33 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.3/40Legible commit history — 14 of 20 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.7
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes840
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), ruff.toml
11/11Static type checking — src/aiovodafone/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Nix, lockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 80 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/aiovodafone/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.8
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/aiovodafone/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes20,984
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

15GitHub stars
9contributors
351commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
56releases
1bus factor
3open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:aiovodafone@3.3.7; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 13 ⇿
0Stars
13Forks
44Releases

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.

03581013151312023-102025-042026-10
Major 3Minor 14Patch 23

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 11:35 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests27 out of 27 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 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@commitlint/config-conventional^21.0.1package.json
PyPIaiohttp(>=3.14.5)pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4—pyproject.toml
PyPIorjson(>=3.13.0,<4)pyproject.toml
PyPIpycryptodome(>=4.0.1,<5)pyproject.toml
PyPIsegno(>=1.6.6)pyproject.toml
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@commitlint/config-conventional21.2.4direct
PyPIaiohttp3.14.5direct
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIorjson3.13.0direct
PyPIpycryptodome4.0.1direct
PyPIsegno1.6.6direct
npm@commitlint/types21.2.3indirect
npm@conventional-changelog/template1.4.0indirect
npm@simple-libs/stream-utils2.0.0indirect
npmargue-cli3.2.0indirect
npmconventional-changelog-conventionalcommits10.4.1indirect
npmconventional-commits-parser7.1.3indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.7.1indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIaiovodafone3.3.7indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcolorlog6.12.0indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.2indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIidna3.20indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.1indirect
PyPImultidict7.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.7.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve3.0.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.25.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 33 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.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.