Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 21:12 UTC

climatepolicyradar / navigator-db-client

All things to do with the datamodel and its storage. Including alembic migrations and datamodel code.

PythonApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jan 2024View on GitHub ↗

climatepolicyradar/navigator-db-client holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (64/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (27/100). It was last updated 39 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Climate Policy RadarOrganization
88 followers63 public repossince May 2021

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

50Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

32At Risk
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 39 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume — 13 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push39
active_weeks_last_year5

Release discipline

78Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 87 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 216 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~26.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count87
latest_release_tagv3.11.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release216
mean_days_between_releases26.3
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?

27At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 58% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.583

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
28.4/30PR acceptance — 105/111 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs105
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs6
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

68Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14/25Owner reach — 88 followers of climatepolicyradar
23.6/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers88
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginclimatepolicyradar
public_repos63
account_age_days1,941

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — ruff.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
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?

40Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

32At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

73Good
How it's scored
19.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: requests 2.32.5 (moderate 5.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
35.2/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 179 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories20
affected_packages6
assessed_packages35
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 3, low 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 35 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

45Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.trunk.io/llms.txt)
29.9/40Legible commit history — 56 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.trunk.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.56
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

63Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — ruff.toml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
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_bytes31,489
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
7contributors
13commits, last 12 months
39days since last push
87releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch pypi package 'db-client' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 21:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIsqlalchemy>=1.4.31,<2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIalembic>=1.7.6pyproject.toml
PyPIalembic-utils>=0.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpsycopg2-binary>=2.9.3pyproject.toml
PyPISQLAlchemy-Utils>=0.38.2pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.28pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-slugify>=6.1.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpycountry>=24.6.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalembic1.17.1direct
PyPIalembic-utils0.8.8direct
PyPIpsycopg2-binary2.9.11direct
PyPIpycountry24.6.1direct
PyPIpydantic2.12.3direct
PyPIpython-slugify8.0.4direct
PyPIrequests2.32.5direct
PyPIsqlalchemy1.4.54direct
PyPIsqlalchemy-utils0.42.0direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.10.5indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.11.0indirect
PyPIflupy1.2.3indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.2.4indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImako1.3.10indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIparse1.20.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest-alembic0.12.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytest-mock-resources2.12.4indirect
PyPIpython-on-whales0.79.0indirect
PyPItext-unidecode1.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.5.0indirect
Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 35 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
mako1.3.10indirecthigh41.3.12
urllib32.5.0indirecthigh82.7.0
requests2.32.5directmoderate22.33.0
idna3.11indirectmoderate23.15
pytest8.4.2indirectmoderate29.0.3
pygments2.19.2indirectlow22.20.0

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 climatepolicyradar/navigator-db-client. Read them side by side →

100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional100scikit-learn/scikit-learnscikit-learn: machine learning in PythonExceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional100aws/serverless-application-modelThe AWS Serverless Application Model (AWS SAM) transform is a AWS CloudFormation macro that transforms SAM templates into CloudFormation templates.Exceptional100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional100uxlfoundation/oneDNNoneAPI Deep Neural Network Library (oneDNN)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.