Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-02 02:50 UTC

cogent3 / scinexus

composable apps for scientific programming

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 7 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗

cogent3/scinexus holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

cogent3Organization
10 followers23 public repossince Sep 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIscinexus2026.10.23,614140 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 431 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_year431
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tag2026.10.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases18.1
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars — 7 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars7
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesapp.codacy.com, coveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.4/80Monthly downloads — 3,614 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesscinexus
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,614
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
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
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance — 93/97 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs93
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d14
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
7.5/25Owner reach — 10 followers of cogent3
22.1/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers10
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincogent3
public_repos23
account_age_days2,579

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 — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesscinexus
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — ruff.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://scinexus.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbioinformatics, scientific-computing, software-engineering, software-factory
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://scinexus.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://scinexus.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 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 — 9 out of 9 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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 — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 77 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.794
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — ruff.toml
11/11Static type checking — src/scinexus/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesnoxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/scinexus/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/scinexus/py.typed)
49.4/55Manageable file sizes — 4/39 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes109,044
source_files_sampled39
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

7GitHub stars
1contributors
431commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:scinexus@2026.10.2; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-02 02:49 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcharset_normalizer—pyproject.toml
PyPIciteable—pyproject.toml
PyPIscitrack—pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm—pyproject.toml
PyPItypeguard—pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.