Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 06:02 UTC

cognitedata / toolkit

Official Cognite Data Fusion Toolkit CLI

PythonCustom license★ 22 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

cognitedata/toolkit holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (59/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CogniteOrganization · verified domain

351 followers325 public repossince Jan 2017

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
PyPI	cognite_toolkit	0.8.199	52,841	804	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36	Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,170 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,170
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	51

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~0.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	0.8.199
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	0.6

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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

36Weak

How it's scored

21.4/60	Stars — 22 stars
6.5/25	Forks — 7 forks
8.5/15	Watchers — 35 watchers

Inputs used

forks	7
stars	22
watchers	35
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

71Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	8
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

79Good

How it's scored

63/80	Monthly downloads — 52,841 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	cognite_toolkit
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	52,841
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?

75Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 63% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 38 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	38
top_contributor_share	0.633

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good

How it's scored

33.6/42	Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
27.3/30	PR acceptance — 2,890/3,178 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	2,890
open_issues	5
closed_issues	20
prs_merged_7d	34
prs_decided_7d	35
prs_merged_30d	55
prs_decided_30d	60
issue_closed_ratio	0.8
closed_unmerged_prs	288
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

93Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
18.3/25	Owner reach — 351 followers of cognitedata
25/25	Track record — 325 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	351
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	cognitedata
public_repos	325
account_age_days	3,509

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 804 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	cognite_toolkit
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/cognite-toolkit/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ai-low-risk
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://pypi.org/project/cognite-toolkit/
docs_site	https://pypi.org/project/cognite-toolkit/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

66Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 6 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
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 13 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6.6

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

Dependency advisories

61Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: pip 26.1.1 (high 8.0)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.3/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 100 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	24
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	122
unassessed_packages	5
affected_by_severity	high 4, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 122 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 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.

75Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .cursor/rules/gh-cli.mdc, AGENTS.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.cognite.com/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.cognite.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.99
agent_instruction_files	.cursor/rules/gh-cli.mdc, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	1,460

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
6/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.03
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.2/55	Manageable file sizes — 11/795 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	137,609
source_files_sampled	795
oversized_source_files	11

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — tests/data/complete_org_alpha_flags/modules/my_example_module/data_modeling/AssetHierarchy.graphql, tests/data/naughty_project/modules/difficult_graphql/misbehaving_grandparent.GraphQLSchema.graphql, tests/data/project_no_cognite_modules/modules/a_module/data_modeling/my_model.graphql
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	tests/data/complete_org_alpha_flags/modules/my_example_module/data_modeling/AssetHierarchy.graphql, tests/data/naughty_project/modules/difficult_graphql/misbehaving_grandparent.GraphQLSchema.graphql, tests/data/project_no_cognite_modules/modules/a_module/data_modeling/my_model.graphql
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

22GitHub stars

38contributors

1,170commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

5open 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:cognite_toolkit@0.8.199; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 7 ⇿

0Stars

7Forks

16Releases

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 0Minor 0Patch 16

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10

6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 06:01 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 6 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
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
5	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	13 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 17

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	python-dotenv	`>=1.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cognite-sdk	`>=8.6.0,<9.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx	`>=0.28.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`>=6.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typer	`>=0.12.0, <1.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`>=13.9.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	questionary	`>=2.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli	`>=2.0.1, <3.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	packaging	`>=25`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`>=4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	toml	`>=0.10.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	sentry-sdk	`>=2.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	mixpanel	`>=4.10.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`>=2.12.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dateutil	`>= 2.9.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pip	`>=25.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	filelock	`>=3.18.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 127

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 105 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	cognite-sdk	`—`	direct
PyPI	cognite-sdk	`7.*`	direct
PyPI	cognite-sdk	`7.51.1`	direct
PyPI	cognite-sdk	`8.6.0`	direct
PyPI	filelock	`3.29.0`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	direct
PyPI	mixpanel	`4.11.1`	direct
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	direct
PyPI	pip	`26.1.1`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.4`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.9.*`	direct
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	direct
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.2`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.*`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	questionary	`2.1.1`	direct
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	direct
PyPI	sentry-sdk	`2.60.0`	direct
PyPI	toml	`0.10.2`	direct
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	direct
PyPI	typer	`0.25.1`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	authlib	`1.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	backports-strenum	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.5.20`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	cognite-neat	`1.0.61`	indirect
PyPI	cognite-toolkit	`0.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	cramjam	`2.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`48.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	et-xmlfile	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	fastparquet	`2026.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	freezegun	`1.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	fsspec	`2026.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	icdiff	`2.0.10`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.19`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.16`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	inflect	`—`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	joserfc	`1.6.7`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	marko	`2.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	msal	`1.36.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	networkx	`3.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	networkx	`3.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.5`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	openpyxl	`3.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`2.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.9.6`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pprintpp	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.52`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`7.35.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyarrow	`24.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.4`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyodide-http	`0.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-datadir	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-freezegun	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-icdiff	`0.9`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-json-report	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-metadata	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-regressions	`2.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-rerunfailures	`16.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2026.2`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	responses	`0.26.1`	indirect
PyPI	respx	`0.23.1`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlparse	`0.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-python-dateutil	`2.9.0.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.33.0.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-toml	`0.10.8.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.2`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 122 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pip	`26.1.1`	direct	high	4	`26.2.0`
cryptography	`48.0.0`	indirect	high	7	`50.0.0`
joserfc	`1.6.7`	indirect	high	2	`1.6.8`
sqlparse	`0.5.5`	indirect	high	9	`0.6.0`
setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`83.0.0`

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