Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-29 18:31 UTC

earth-mover / xpublish-tiles

Tile router for Xpublish

PythonApache-2.0★ 67 stars⑂ 18 forkssince Jul 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

earth-mover/xpublish-tiles holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on Security (52/100). 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

EarthmoverOrganization
297 followers40 public repossince Dec 2021

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIxpublish-tiles0.7.212,225520 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

85Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
21.5/36Commit cadence — 31/52 weeks with commits
17.9/18Commit volume — 97 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 29 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year97
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year31

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~12.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tag0.7.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases12.3
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak
How it's scored
29.5/60Stars — 67 stars
10.3/25Forks — 18 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks18
stars67
watchers5
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 (Apache-2.0)
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

68Good
How it's scored
54.5/80Monthly downloads — 12,225 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesxpublish-tiles
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads12,225
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 75% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.75

Issue & PR responsiveness

58Moderate
How it's scored
18.6/42Issue resolution — 44% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance — 207/226 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs207
open_issues20
closed_issues16
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.444
closed_unmerged_prs19
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

69Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.8/25Owner reach — 297 followers of earth-mover
21/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers297
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginearth-mover
public_repos40
account_age_days1,693

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 52 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesxpublish-tiles
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

40Weak
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 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 8/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 29 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
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
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 44 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.2
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.

71Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 92 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.92
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,558

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

70Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/xpublish_tiles/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 36 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/xpublish_tiles/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.36
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

78Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/xpublish_tiles/py.typed)
51/55Manageable file sizes — 4/55 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes149,710
source_files_sampled55
oversized_source_files4

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—

Key facts

67GitHub stars
11contributors
97commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
27releases
1bus factor
20open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:xpublish-tiles@0.7.2; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 18 ⇿
0Stars
18Forks
25Releases

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.

0481216201822025-102026-022026-06
Major 0Minor 5Patch 20
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-29 18:31 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests25 out of 25 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 8/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained29 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities44 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 28
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcf-xarray>=0.11.2pyproject.toml
PyPIcftime>=1.6.4.post1pyproject.toml
PyPIdatashader>=0.19.1pyproject.toml
PyPIdonfig>=0.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPImorecantile>=5.4.2pyproject.toml
PyPInumbagg>=0.9.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumba>=0.60.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-xml>=2.17.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpyproj>=3.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIxpublish>=0.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfastapi—pyproject.toml
PyPIxarray>=2025.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIzarr>=3.1.2pyproject.toml
PyPIrasterix>=0.2.2pyproject.toml
PyPItoolz>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIcachetools>=5.5.2pyproject.toml
PyPItbb>=2022.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIstructlog>=24.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp>=3.12.15pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow>=11.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=3.10.5pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.32.5pyproject.toml
PyPInumba-celltree>=0.4.1pyproject.toml
PyPItriangular>=0.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-image>=0.25.2pyproject.toml
PyPIicechunk>=2pyproject.toml
PyPIpooch>=1.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIspatialpandas>=0.5pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with earth-mover/xpublish-tiles. Read them side by side →

100pylint-dev/pylintIt's not just a linter that annoys you!Exceptional100Elastic/beats:tropical_fish: Beats - Lightweight shippers for Elasticsearch & LogstashExceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional100wandb/wandbThe AI developer platform. Use Weights & Biases to train and fine-tune models, and manage models from experimentation to production.Exceptional100run-llama/llama_indexLlamaIndex is the leading document agent and OCR platformExceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK Exceptional

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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