Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-03 01:56 UTC

durandtibo / feu

A light library to help to manage packages

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

durandtibo/feu holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (57/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Thibaut DurandPersonal account
110 followers66 public repossince Nov 2014Borealis AI

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
PyPIfeu0.7.3881,8597916 days agocompatibilitydependencyinstallpackagepackage-managerversionversion-management

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

96Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.8/36Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 485 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_year485
human_commit_share0.86
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year46

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 31 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 16 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~30 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tagv0.7.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases30
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges13
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

99Exceptional
How it's scored
79.3/80Monthly downloads — 881,859 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfeu
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads881,859
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical
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
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.8/30PR acceptance — 836/902 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_prs836
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d55
prs_decided_7d55
prs_merged_30d55
prs_decided_30d55
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs66
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.

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.7/25Owner reach — 110 followers of durandtibo
25/25Track record — 66 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers110
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindurandtibo
public_repos66
account_age_days4,270
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 16 days ago
20/20Version history — 79 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfeu
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

85Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 28 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://durandtibo.github.io/feu/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://durandtibo.github.io/feu/
docs_sitehttps://durandtibo.github.io/feu/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
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
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.1
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
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_packages1
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:feu@0.7.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 84 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.977
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

82Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/feu/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 4 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
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/feu/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/feu/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/161 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes26,285
source_files_sampled161
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
485commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
31releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-03 01:56 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
4CI-Tests13 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpackaging>=21.0,<27.0pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>= 2.0,<3.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 71

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 69 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpackaging26.2direct
PyPItomli2.4.1direct
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIbracex3.0.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.2indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdocformatter1.7.8indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfeu0.8.0a0indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.2indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.57indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIinvoke3.0.3indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
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-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.6indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.5.1indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.1indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIverspec0.1.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.1indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcmatch11.0indirect
PyPIxdoctest1.3.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:feu@0.7.3 pulls in 1 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with durandtibo/feu. Read them side by side →

93conan-io/conanConan - The open-source C and C++ package managerExceptional97composer/composerDependency Manager for PHPExceptional95python-poetry/poetryPython packaging and dependency management made easyExceptional95pdm-project/pdmA modern Python package and dependency manager supporting the latest PEP standardsExceptional78gentoo/portage[MIRROR] Package management systemGood98npm/clithe package manager for JavaScriptExceptional

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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