Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 17:09 UTC

crossbario / txaio

Utilities to support code that runs unmodified on Twisted and asyncio

Python · JustCustom license★ 56 stars⑂ 30 forkssince Mar 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

crossbario/txaio holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (89/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated 70 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Crossbar.ioOrganization · verified domain
56 followers38 public repossince Oct 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPItxaio26.6.16,821,9704370 days agoasynciocoroutinetrolliustwisted

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 70 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
14.5/18Commit volume — 40 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year40
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push70
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 31 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 70 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tagv26_6_1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release70
mean_days_between_releases0

Community & Adoption

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

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.2/60Stars — 56 stars
12.2/25Forks — 30 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks30
stars56
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 6,821,970 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestxaio
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads6,821,970
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 49% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.487
How it's scored
33.5/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance — 121/134 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs121
open_issues18
closed_issues71
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.798
closed_unmerged_prs13
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
20/20Verified domain
12.6/25Owner reach — 56 followers of crossbario
23.6/25Track record — 38 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers56
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logincrossbario
public_repos38
account_age_days4,704

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 70 days ago
20/20Version history — 43 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestxaio
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish70

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

89Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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://txaio.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython-2, python-3, source-compatibility, twisted, asyncio
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://txaio.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3.9

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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
18/45Agent instructions — .gemini/GEMINI.md, CLAUDE.md (stub)
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.1/40Legible commit history — 49 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.49
agent_instruction_files.gemini/GEMINI.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes23
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile, justfile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/txaio/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, justfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/txaio/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/txaio/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/34 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes18,101
source_files_sampled34
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

56GitHub stars
15contributors
40commits, last 12 months
70days since last push
31releases
2bus factor
18open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 30 ⇿
0Stars
30Forks

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.

0510152025302822015-032020-052025-07

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 17:09 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 39 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIapi—indirect
PyPIarg—indirect
PyPIargs—indirect
PyPIasyncio—indirect
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcallables—indirect
PyPIcallback—indirect
PyPIcallbacks—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcpython—indirect
PyPIdeferred—indirect
PyPIdeferreds—indirect
PyPIerrback—indirect
PyPIerrbacks—indirect
PyPIfuro—indirect
PyPIkwarg—indirect
PyPIkwargs—indirect
PyPIlinkify-it-py—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPIpyenchant—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIscour—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autoapi—indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton—indirect
PyPIsphinx-design—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-images—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-spelling—indirect
PyPIsphinxext-opengraph—indirect
PyPIstdlib—indirect
PyPItrollius—indirect
PyPItwine—indirect
PyPItwisted—indirect
PyPItxaio—indirect
PyPIty—indirect
PyPIwheel—indirect
PyPIzope-interface—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.