Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 23:06 UTC

cortega26 / rutificador

Python library and CLI for validating and formatting Chilean RUT identifiers.

PythonMIT★ 12 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Apr 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#chile#python#rut#validation#cli#pypi#rutificador

cortega26/rutificador holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (49/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 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

Carlos Ortega GonzálezPersonal account
27 followers40 public repossince Dec 2020

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 publishTags
PyPIrutificador2.0.02,3787852 days agorutchileformateoidrutificadorrut-chile

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 167 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_year167
human_commit_share0.87
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

76Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 52 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release52
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

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

49Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

19Critical
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars12
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

56Moderate
How it's scored
45/80Monthly downloads — 2,378 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrutificador
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,378
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?

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.993

Issue & PR responsiveness

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
24/30PR acceptance — 72/90 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs72
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs18
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.4/25Owner reach — 27 followers of cortega26
23.3/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers27
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logincortega26
public_repos40
account_age_days2,103
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 52 days ago
20/20Version history — 78 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrutificador
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish52

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/rutificador/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicschile, python, rut, validation, cli, pypi, rutificador
has_wikino
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/rutificador/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/rutificador/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate
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 — 11 out of 11 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 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.6

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_packages106
unassessed_packages10
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 106 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 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.

73Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

84Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.6/40Legible commit history — 63 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.724
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,191

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — rutificador/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 19 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 13 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsrutificador/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.19
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.13

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (rutificador/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/54 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes28,408
source_files_sampled54
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
2contributors
167commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'rutificador' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for rutificador carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks

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.

12233312024-052024-122025-06
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 23:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 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 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpydantic^2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfastapi>=0.110.0,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.27.0,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=1.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpolars>=0.17.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 116

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 106 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIfastapi—direct
PyPIfastapi0.141.1direct
PyPIhttpx—direct
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPIpandas2.3.3direct
PyPIpolars—direct
PyPIpolars1.44.1direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.5direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.5indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.15.0indirect
PyPIarrow1.4.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIboolean-py5.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIcoveralls—indirect
PyPIcyclonedx-bom7.3.0indirect
PyPIcyclonedx-python-lib11.12.0indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdeptry0.25.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.5indirect
PyPIfqdn1.5.1indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.2.0indirect
PyPIgrimp3.16indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.6.0indirect
PyPIhttpx22.4.0indirect
PyPIhypothesis—indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIimport-linter2.14indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisoduration20.11.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjsonpointer3.1.1indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIlark1.3.1indirect
PyPIlicense-expression30.4.4indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.3indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.6indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.8indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPInumpy2.2.6indirect
PyPIpackageurl-python0.17.6indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpillow12.3.0indirect
PyPIpip—indirect
PyPIpip-requirements-parser32.0.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.7indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpolars-runtime-321.44.1indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.2indirect
PyPIpy-cpuinfo210.1.1indirect
PyPIpy-serializable2.1.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.2indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-benchmark5.3.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.0indirect
PyPIpytz2026.3.post1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequirements-parser0.13.1indirect
PyPIrfc3339-validator0.1.4indirect
PyPIrfc3986-validator0.1.1indirect
PyPIrfc3987-syntax1.1.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIstarlette1.6.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.4indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIuri-template1.3.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.8indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwebcolors25.10.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 106 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with cortega26/rutificador. Read them side by side →

98pypa/pipxInstall and Run Python Applications in Isolated EnvironmentsExceptional99pypa/cibuildwheel🎡 Build Python wheels for all the platforms with minimal configuration. Exceptional99aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional99apache/supersetApache Superset is a Data Visualization and Data Exploration PlatformExceptional98pydantic/pydanticData validation using Python type hintsExceptional98awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional

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.