Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-25 14:08 UTC

eracle / OpenOutFind

AI-powered B2B lead finder: discovery on licensed lead data, LLM fit qualification with the reason written out, CSV out. The finder core, extracted from OpenOutreach.

PythonGPL-3.0★ 7 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined
#agentic#b2b#icp#lead-generation#lead-qualification#llm#prospecting#python#sales-intelligence#self-hosted

eracle/OpenOutFind holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Antonio Ercole De LucaPersonal account
163 followers52 public repossince Feb 2013

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
PyPIopenoutfind0.1.223,409220 days agob2bcold-emailcrmlead-generationopen-sourceoutreachsales-automationself-hosted

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

50Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 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_year22
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 1 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 25 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.1.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release25
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

39Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

17Critical
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars — 7 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars7
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 (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

59Moderate
How it's scored
47.1/80Monthly downloads — 3,409 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesopenoutfind
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,409
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?

39Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
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
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.9/25Owner reach — 163 followers of eracle
24.6/25Track record — 52 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers163
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logineracle
public_repos52
account_age_days4,968
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 22 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopenoutfind
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://openoutreach.app
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagentic, b2b, icp, lead-generation, lead-qualification, llm, prospecting, python, sales-intelligence, self-hosted
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://openoutreach.app
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

50Moderate
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4.6/40Legible commit history — 2 of 23 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.087
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes58,315

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

50Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 23
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/109 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes27,557
source_files_sampled109
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

7GitHub stars
1contributors
22commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:openoutfind@0.1.22; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks

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.

1223344422026-092026-092026-09
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-25 14:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIDjango>=5.2,<7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.9,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-ai-slim>=2,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIgriffe>=1,<2pyproject.toml
PyPIjsonpath-ng>=1.6,<2pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=2.2,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2>=3.1,<4pyproject.toml
PyPItermcolor>=2.4,<4pyproject.toml
PyPItendo>=0.3,<0.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml>=6,<7pyproject.toml
PyPIfastembed>=0.4,<1pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn>=1.4,<2pyproject.toml
PyPIhuggingface_hub>=0.23,<1pyproject.toml
PyPIopenoutlearn>=0.1.1,<1pyproject.toml
PyPIpytz>=2024.1pyproject.toml
PyPIimapclient>=3,<4pyproject.toml
PyPItenacity>=8,<10pyproject.toml
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdjango—direct
PyPIfastembed—direct
PyPIgriffe—direct
PyPIhuggingface-hub—direct
PyPIimapclient—direct
PyPIjinja2—direct
PyPIjsonpath-ng—direct
PyPIopenoutlearn—direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpydantic-ai-slim—direct
PyPIpytz—direct
PyPIpyyaml—direct
PyPIscikit-learn—direct
PyPItenacity—direct
PyPItendo—direct
PyPItermcolor—direct
PyPIfactory-boy—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-django—indirect
PyPIpytest-mock—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 eracle/OpenOutFind. Read them side by side →

99ag2ai/ag2AG2 (formerly AutoGen): The Open-Source AgentOS.Join us at: https://discord.gg/sNGSwQME3xExceptional98strands-agents/toolsA set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.Exceptional98langchain-ai/langchainThe agent engineering platform.Exceptional98langchain-ai/langgraphBuild resilient agents.Exceptional98bytedance/deer-flowAn open-source long-horizon SuperAgent harness that researches, codes, and creates. With the help of sandboxes, memories, tools, skill, subagents and message gateway, it handles different levels of tasks that could take minutes to hours.Exceptional98Agenta-AI/agentaAgenta is a workspace where you and your team build agents and automations.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 v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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