Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-26 13:46 UTC

commonism / aiopenapi3

Python OpenAPI3 client/validator w\ {a,}syncio

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 21 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Jan 2022View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#openapi3 #openapi31 #swagger #openapi #swagger2 #python #async #asyncio #api #pydantic #openapi2 #openapi32

commonism/aiopenapi3 holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (42/100). 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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

commonismPersonal account

24 followers66 public repossince Dec 2009

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	aiopenapi3	0.10.0	161,092	29	148 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

80Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36	Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 138 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	138
human_commit_share	0.93
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	23

Release discipline

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 20 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 148 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~87.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	20
latest_release_tag	v0.10.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	148
mean_days_between_releases	87.8

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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

28At Risk

How it's scored

21.1/60	Stars — 21 stars
7/25	Forks — 8 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	8
stars	21
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

87Excellent

How it's scored

69.4/80	Monthly downloads — 161,092 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	aiopenapi3
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	161,092
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

32At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	15
top_contributor_share	0.83

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good

How it's scored

38.2/42	Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
19.1/30	PR acceptance — 282/444 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	282
open_issues	1
closed_issues	10
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	11
prs_decided_30d	11
issue_closed_ratio	0.909
closed_unmerged_prs	162
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.1/25	Owner reach — 24 followers of commonism
25/25	Track record — 66 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	24
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	commonism
public_repos	66
account_age_days	6,135

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 148 days ago
20/20	Version history — 29 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	aiopenapi3
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	148

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 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

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://aiopenapi3.readthedocs.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 12 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	openapi3, openapi31, swagger, openapi, swagger2, python, async, asyncio, api, pydantic, openapi2, openapi32
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://aiopenapi3.readthedocs.io/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

63Moderate

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 — 14 out of 14 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
2.5/2.5	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
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
2/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	6.3

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	21
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:aiopenapi3@0.10.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 21 packages. 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.

42Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

4Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4/40	Legible commit history — 7 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.075
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/108 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	36,950
source_files_sampled	108
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

21GitHub stars

15contributors

138commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

20releases

1bus factor

1open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 8 ⇿

0Stars

8Forks

17Releases

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 6Patch 3

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10

6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-26 13:46 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	14 out of 14 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
0	Code-Review	Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
4	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 10

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	PyYaml	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`>= 2.13.0b2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	email-validator	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	yarl	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx2	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	more-itertools	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	jmespath	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ijson	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	jsonseq	`—`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 67

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	email-validator	`2.3.0`	direct
PyPI	httpx2	`2.13.1`	direct
PyPI	ijson	`3.5.1`	direct
PyPI	jmespath	`1.1.0`	direct
PyPI	jsonseq	`1.0.0`	direct
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.5`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	yarl	`1.25.1`	direct
PyPI	-	`—`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	asgiref	`3.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	backports-asyncio-runner	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	blinker	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	bootstrap-flask	`2.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	fastapi	`0.141.1`	indirect
PyPI	flask	`3.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	flask-wtf	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	h2	`4.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	hpack	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore2	`2.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2-jsfetch	`1.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2-pytest	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	hyperframe	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.20`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	itsdangerous	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	nonecorn	`0.17.3`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	priority	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	propcache	`0.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.5`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-extra-types	`2.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-multipart	`0.0.32`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rtd-theme	`—`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	taskgroup	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	trustme	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	uvloop	`0.22.1`	indirect
PyPI	werkzeug	`3.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	wsproto	`1.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	wtforms	`3.2.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:aiopenapi3@0.10.0 pulls in 21 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

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