Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 01:26 UTC

davidfstr / Crystal-Web-Archiver

Downloads websites for long-term archival.

PythonCustom license★ 90 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Jan 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

davidfstr/Crystal-Web-Archiver holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (45/100). It was last updated 61 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

David FosterPersonal account
102 followers90 public repossince May 2011TechSmart Inc.

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 publish
PyPIcrystal-web2.3.06113159 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 61 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 665 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year665
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push61
active_weeks_last_year33
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 159 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~82.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv2.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release159
mean_days_between_releases82.9

Community & Adoption

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

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.6/60Stars — 90 stars
6.5/25Forks — 7 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars90
watchers1
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
23.9/80Monthly downloads — 61 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescrystal-web
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads61
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?

50Moderate · 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
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
25.2/42Issue resolution — 60% of issues closed
12.1/30PR acceptance — 17/42 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs17
open_issues109
closed_issues163
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.599
closed_unmerged_prs25
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.5/25Owner reach — 102 followers of davidfstr
25/25Track record — 90 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers102
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindavidfstr
public_repos90
account_age_days5,608
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 159 days ago
20/20Version history — 13 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescrystal-web
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish159

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.isort])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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 — http://dafoster.net/projects/crystal-web-archiver
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswebsite-downloader, digital-preservation, archival
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://dafoster.net/projects/crystal-web-archiver
docs_sitehttp://dafoster.net/projects/crystal-web-archiver
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages42
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:crystal-web@2.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 42 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/end_to_end_tests.instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.7/40Legible commit history — 21 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.219
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/end_to_end_tests.instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,405
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.isort])
11/11Static type checking — mypy.ini, src/crystal/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, src/crystal/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (mypy.ini, src/crystal/py.typed)
50.7/55Manageable file sizes — 20/253 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes199,637
source_files_sampled253
oversized_source_files20

Key facts

90GitHub stars
1contributors
665commits, last 12 months
61days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
109open 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 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks
9Releases

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.

1234567712022-022023-112025-09
Major 0Minor 2Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 01:26 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 25
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIwxPython4.2.5pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4^4.9.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpy2app^0.28.8pyproject.toml
PyPIpy2exe^0.14.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItinycss2^1.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIappdirs^1.4.4pyproject.toml
PyPIcolorama^0.4.4pyproject.toml
PyPItzlocal^4.2pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml^6.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm^4.65.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsortedcontainers^2.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIguppy3^3.1.5pyproject.toml
PyPIxattr^1.1.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpsutil^5.9.5pyproject.toml
PyPIwmi*pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions^4.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPItruststore*pyproject.toml
PyPIsend2trash^1.8.3pyproject.toml
PyPIjaraco-text>=4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIwakepy^0.9.0pyproject.toml
PyPItrycast^1.2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIPySocks^1.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIboto3*pyproject.toml
PyPIs3-parse-url==0.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIapsw*pyproject.toml
All dependencies 83

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 25 direct and 58 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIappdirs1.4.4direct
PyPIapsw3.53.0.0direct
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3direct
PyPIboto31.43.3direct
PyPIcolorama0.4.6direct
PyPIguppy33.1.6direct
PyPIjaraco-text4.2.0direct
PyPIlxml6.1.0direct
PyPIpsutil5.9.8direct
PyPIpy2app0.28.10direct
PyPIpy2exe0.14.0.0direct
PyPIpysocks1.7.1direct
PyPIs3-parse-url0.4.0direct
PyPIsend2trash1.8.3direct
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0direct
PyPItinycss21.5.1direct
PyPItqdm4.67.3direct
PyPItruststore0.10.4direct
PyPItrycast1.3.0direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPItzlocal4.3.1direct
PyPIwakepy0.9.1direct
PyPIwmi1.5.1direct
PyPIwxpython4.2.5direct
PyPIxattr1.3.0direct
PyPIaltgraph0.17.5indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIbotocore1.43.3indirect
PyPIcachetools7.1.1indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIclick8.3.3indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIdill0.3.9indirect
PyPIflameprof0.4indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.5.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort6.1.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.4.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjmespath1.1.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.9.0indirect
PyPImacholib1.16.4indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImodulegraph0.19.7indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.0.2indirect
PyPImss10.2.0indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpefile2024.8.26indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIplaywright1.59.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpyee13.0.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.5indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytz-deprecation-shim0.1.0.post0indirect
PyPIpywin32311indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIs3transfer0.17.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPItomlkit0.14.0indirect
PyPItyper0.25.1indirect
PyPItyper-slim0.24.0indirect
PyPItypes-pytz2026.1.1.20260408indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.33.0.20260503indirect
PyPItypes-tqdm4.67.3.20260408indirect
PyPItypes-tzlocal4.3.0.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwebencodings0.5.1indirect
PyPIzizmor1.24.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:crystal-web@2.3.0 pulls in 42 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.

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.