Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 17:43 UTC

dpranke / pyjson5

A Python implementation of the JSON5 data format

PythonCustom license★ 282 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Mar 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

dpranke/pyjson5 holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (61/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 25 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Dirk PrankePersonal account
43 followers21 public repossince Dec 2010

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
PyPIjson50.15.0-5530 days agojson5

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

49Weak
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 25 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push25
active_weeks_last_year8

Release discipline

80Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 59 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 30 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~65.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count59
latest_release_tagv0.15.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release30
mean_days_between_releases65.1
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

58Moderate
How it's scored
39.7/60Stars — 282 stars
12.7/25Forks — 34 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks34
stars282
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

28At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 91% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.911

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good
How it's scored
37.8/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance — 35/41 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs35
open_issues7
closed_issues62
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.899
closed_unmerged_prs6
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

54Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.8/25Owner reach — 43 followers of dpranke
21.8/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers43
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindpranke
public_repos21
account_age_days5,703
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 30 days ago
20/20Version history — 55 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjson5
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish30

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.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_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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
advisories34
affected_packages10
assessed_packages96
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 7, moderate 2, low 1
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 96 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

39Weak · 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)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — json5/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_configsjson5/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (json5/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes36,547
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

282GitHub stars
15contributors
15commits, last 12 months
25days since last push
59releases
1bus factor
7open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-20 17:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
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
3Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 96

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 96 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIastroid3.2.4indirect
PyPIastroid3.3.11indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIbuild1.2.2.post1indirect
PyPIbuild1.4.4indirect
PyPIbuild1.5.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.5.20indirect
PyPIcffi1.17.1indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.0indirect
PyPIcoverage7.5.4indirect
PyPIcoverage7.8.0indirect
PyPIcryptography47.0.0indirect
PyPIcryptography48.0.0indirect
PyPIdill0.4.0indirect
PyPIdill0.4.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.20.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIid1.5.0indirect
PyPIid1.6.1indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata9.0.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources6.4.5indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIisort6.1.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.0.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.1.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.5.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.5.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.5.0indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.8.0indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.0.2indirect
PyPImypy1.14.1indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInh30.3.5indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpip26.0.1indirect
PyPIpip26.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.4.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpylint3.2.7indirect
PyPIpylint3.3.6indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.5indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer43.0indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer44.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.4indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich14.3.4indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.13indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.3.3indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.3indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.0indirect
PyPItwine6.1.0indirect
PyPItwine6.2.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.1indirect
PyPIzipp4.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 10

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 96 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 10 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
cryptography47.0.0indirecthigh148.0.1
cryptography48.0.0indirecthigh148.0.1
jaraco-context6.0.1indirecthigh26.1.0
pip26.0.1indirecthigh626.1.2
pip26.1.1indirecthigh226.1.2
urllib32.2.3indirecthigh122.7.0
urllib32.6.3indirecthigh42.7.0
requests2.32.4indirectmoderate22.33.0
requests2.32.5indirectmoderate22.33.0
pygments2.19.2indirectlow22.20.0

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 dpranke/pyjson5. Read them side by side →

87kdeldycke/click-extra🌈 Drop-in replacement for Click to make user-friendly and colorful CLIExcellent62Kijewski/pyjson5A JSON5 serializer and parser library for Python 3 written in Cython.Moderate86lumirlumir/npm-bananassBaekjoon Framework for JavaScript. 백준 자바스크립트 프레임워크.🍌Excellent63unjs/confboxCompact YAML, TOML, JSONC and JSON5 and INI parser and serializerModerate60tabnas/json5Moderate59MistEO/meojson✨ Next-gen C++ JSON Serialization Engine | Zero Dependency | Header-Only | Unleash JSON PotentialModerate

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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