Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 16:16 UTC

dgeragh / license-audit

Analyze dependency licenses and get actionable licensing guidance for Python projects.

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

dgeragh/license-audit holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Devin GeraghtyPersonal account
0 followers1 public reposince Jan 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
PyPIlicense-audit0.12.2-143 days agocompliancedependencieslicenseossspdx

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 114 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_year114
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 14 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~7.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv0.12.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases7.8
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 95% 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_share0.947

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 33/33 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs33
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

30At Risk
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of dgeragh
14.2/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindgeragh
public_repos1
account_age_days2,373
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 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslicense-audit
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

68Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 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 0/8 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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

40Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/license_audit/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssrc/license_audit/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/license_audit/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/72 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes19,320
source_files_sampled72
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
114commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 16:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 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 0/8 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIclick>=8.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=13.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIlicense-expression>=30.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging>=23.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs>=3.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIclick8.4.2direct
PyPIlicense-expression30.4.4direct
PyPIpackaging26.2direct
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.4direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs7.0indirect
PyPIboolean-py5.0indirect
PyPIbracex2.7indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.3indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.2indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImike2.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-include-markdown-plugin7.3.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.6indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.4indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIruff0.15.21indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIverspec0.1.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcmatch10.1indirect
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 dgeragh/license-audit. Read them side by side →

94oss-review-toolkit/ortA suite of tools to automate software compliance checks.Exceptional86aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit:mag: ScanCode detects licenses, copyrights, dependencies by "scanning code" ... to discover and inventory open source and third-party packages used in your code. Sponsored by NLnet, the Google Summer of Code, Azure credits, nexB and other generous sponsors!Excellent73aiexponenthq/license-compliance-checkerLicense Compliance Checker — Multi-ecosystem license + AI model scanner for EU AI Act Article 53 GPAI compliance. SBOM, SARIF, training-data risk. Apache 2.0.Good98chainloop-dev/chainloopSDLC evidence store and policy engine for your Software Supply Chain attestations, SBOMs, VEX, SARIF, QA reports, and moreExceptional77aboutcode-org/license-expressionUtility library to parse, normalize and compare License expressions for Python using a boolean logic engine. For expressions using SPDX or any other license id scheme.Good69bact/licenseidA Python CLI and library to get the SPDX License ID from license textGood

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.