Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 18:56 UTC

enarjord / passivbot

Trading bot running on Bybit, Bitget, OKX, GateIO, Binance, Kucoin and Hyperliquid

PythonUnlicense★ 2,027 stars⑂ 660 forkssince Dec 2020View on GitHub ↗
#bybit#futures#trading#algorithmic-trading#bitget#okx#gateio#hyperliquid#perpetual-futures#binance

enarjord/passivbot holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (100/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

enarjordPersonal account
150 followers8 public repossince Nov 2015

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

100Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 3,622 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year3,622
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~19.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv8.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases19.4
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?

79Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

87Excellent
How it's scored
53.6/60Stars — 2,027 stars
23.5/25Forks — 660 forks
10/15Watchers — 64 watchers
Inputs used
forks660
stars2,027
watchers64
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 (Unlicense)
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?

50Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 50 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled50
top_contributor_share0.958

Issue & PR responsiveness

63Moderate
How it's scored
19.2/42Issue resolution — 46% of issues closed
28.1/30PR acceptance — 1,071/1,143 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs1,071
open_issues76
closed_issues64
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.457
closed_unmerged_prs72
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

56Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.7/25Owner reach — 150 followers of enarjord
18.9/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers150
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginenarjord
public_repos8
account_age_days3,908
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 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 — 7 out of 7 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.passivbot.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbybit, futures, trading, algorithmic-trading, bitget, okx, gateio, hyperliquid, perpetual-futures, binance
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.passivbot.com
docs_sitehttps://www.passivbot.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate
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 — 7 out of 7 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 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 — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 38 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
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_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,429
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
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

49Weak
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
48.9/55Manageable file sizes — 48/432 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes823,041
source_files_sampled432
oversized_source_files48

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,027GitHub stars
50contributors
3,622commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
76open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch crates package 'passivbot_rust' from its registry
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'passivbot' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 18:55 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-Tests7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 7/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities38 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iopyo30.21.2passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iondarray0.15.6passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ionumpy0.21.0passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iomemmap0.7.0passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ionum_enum0.7passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum0.26passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum_macros0.26passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4passivbot-rust/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 44

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 34 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iolog—direct
crates.iomemmap—direct
crates.iondarray—direct
crates.ionum_enum—direct
crates.ionumpy—direct
crates.iopyo3—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.iostrum—direct
crates.iostrum_macros—direct
PyPIaiohttp3.13.1indirect
PyPIccxt4.5.48indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdash2.18.2indirect
PyPIdash-bootstrap-components1.6.0indirect
PyPIdeap1.4.3indirect
PyPIdictdiffer0.9.0indirect
PyPIhjson3.0.2indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.10.9indirect
PyPImaturin1.5.1indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.5.32indirect
PyPImsgpack1.1.0indirect
PyPInumpy2.3.5indirect
PyPIopenpyxl3.1.5indirect
PyPIpandas2.3.3indirect
PyPIplotly6.0.1indirect
PyPIportalocker3.2.0indirect
PyPIprettytable3.11.0indirect
PyPIprospector1.17.3indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIpyecharts1.9.1indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.8.1indirect
PyPIpymoo—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-rust—indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItqdm4.66.5indirect
PyPIwebsockets12.0indirect
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 enarjord/passivbot. Read them side by side →

67algovaultlabs/crypto-quant-signal-mcpAI trading brain for crypto perps — composite signals, funding rate arb scanning, and market regime detection via MCPGood69JKorf/CryptoClients.NetLibrary allowing full access to multiple different cryptocurrency exchange API's. Provides a common interface for writing exchange independant code and maps responses and enum values to readable models.Good50burakoner/Bybit.ApiBybit API Wrapper. Up-to-date, most-complete, well-organized, well-documented, easy-to-use, multi-task and multi-thread compatible Bybit Cryptocurrency Exchange Rest and Websocket Api WrapperModerate80JKorf/CryptoExchange.NetA C# .netstandard base library used for implementing cryptocurrency exchange API's.Excellent60burakoner/OKX.ApiUp-to-date, most-complete, well-organized, well-documented, easy-to-use, multi-task and multi-thread compatible OKX Cryptocurrency Exchange Rest and Websocket Api WrapperModerate53burakoner/Gate.IO.ApiUp-to-date, most-complete, well-organized, well-documented, easy-to-use, multi-task and multi-thread compatible Gate.IO Cryptocurrency Exchange Rest and Websocket Api WrapperModerate

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.