Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 22:02 UTC

durandtibo / persista

Python library for persisting and caching data

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

durandtibo/persista holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (91/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Thibaut DurandPersonal account
110 followers68 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
PyPIpersista0.0.341,6161743 days agodatapersiststore

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

59Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 245 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year245
human_commit_share0.79
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 43 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv0.0.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release43
mean_days_between_releases5.7
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?

37Weak · 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges14
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

77Good
How it's scored
61.6/80Monthly downloads — 41,616 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespersista
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads41,616
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?

57Moderate · 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

68Good
How it's scored
30/42Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
29.5/30PR acceptance — 243/247 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs243
open_issues2
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d28
prs_decided_7d28
prs_merged_30d31
prs_decided_30d31
issue_closed_ratio0.714
closed_unmerged_prs4
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 — 68 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers110
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindurandtibo
public_repos68
account_age_days4,311
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 43 days ago
20/20Version history — 17 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespersista
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish43

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 28 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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/persista/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://durandtibo.github.io/persista/
docs_sitehttps://durandtibo.github.io/persista/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

75Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

69Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 27 out of 30 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 0/28 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
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
4/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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_packages3
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:persista@0.0.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

71Good · 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 — 78 of 79 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.987
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

90Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
11/11Static type checking — src/persista/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/persista/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.07

Code legibility for models

81Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/persista/py.typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 3/203 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes81,354
source_files_sampled203
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
245commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
2open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 22:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
9Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests27 out of 30 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 0/28 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
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
8SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcoola>=1.1.11a0,<2.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 94

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 93 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcoola1.1.11a0direct
PyPIaiosqlite0.22.1indirect
PyPIanyio4.15.1indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIbracex3.0.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdocformatter1.7.8indirect
PyPIdocker7.2.0indirect
PyPIduckdb1.5.5indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfaker40.38.0indirect
PyPIfakeredis2.37.1indirect
PyPIfeu0.8.3indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.5indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.62indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.3.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhiredis3.4.1indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIinvoke3.0.3indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlmdb2.3.0indirect
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-python2.0.8indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpersista0.0.4a1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.7indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.2indirect
PyPIpsycopg3.3.5indirect
PyPIpsycopg-binary3.3.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.2indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.3indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpywin32312indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIredis8.1.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.6indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.3indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItestcontainers4.15.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIverspec0.1.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.8indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcmatch11.0.1indirect
PyPIwrapt2.4.0indirect
PyPIxdoctest1.3.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:persista@0.0.3 pulls in 3 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/persista. Read them side by side →

91Karanjot786/TermUITermUI is a TypeScript/JavaScript framework for building terminal apps. Flexbox layout, JSX, hooks, global state, theming, animations, routing, and hot reload. No native dependencies. Excellent100run-llama/llama_indexLlamaIndex is the document processing platform for AIExceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100PrefectHQ/prefectPrefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python.Exceptional98meltano/meltanoMeltano: the declarative code-first data integration engine that powers your wildest data and ML-powered product ideas. Say goodbye to writing, maintaining, and scaling your own API integrations.Exceptional98feast-dev/feastThe Open Source Feature Store for AI/MLExceptional

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.