Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:38 UTC

explosion / weasel

🦦 weasel: A small and easy workflow system

PythonMIT★ 93 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Sep 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#python

explosion/weasel holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (31/100). It was last updated 113 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ExplosionOrganization
1,496 followers79 public repossince Jun 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIweasel1.0.0-16120 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

45Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

26At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 113 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
13/18Commit volume — 27 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year27
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push113
active_weeks_last_year5

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 14 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 120 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~105.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagrelease-v1.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release120
mean_days_between_releases105.4

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

48Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

41Weak
How it's scored
31.9/60Stars — 93 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars93
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

79Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

65Good
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 29% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.294

Issue & PR responsiveness

60Moderate
How it's scored
23.1/42Issue resolution — 55% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance — 70/81 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs70
open_issues9
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.55
closed_unmerged_prs11
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

97Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
22.8/25Owner reach — 1,496 followers of explosion
25/25Track record — 79 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,496
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginexplosion
public_repos79
account_age_days3,682
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 120 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesweasel
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish120

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good
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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

40Weak
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 — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4

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.

31At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

44Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/40 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes13,247
source_files_sampled40
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

93GitHub stars
13contributors
27commits, last 12 months
113days since last push
14releases
2bus factor
9open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 13:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
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
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIconfection>=1.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIpackaging>=20.0setup.cfg
PyPIwasabi>=0.9.1setup.cfg
PyPIsrsly>=2.4.3setup.cfg
PyPItyper>=0.3.0setup.cfg
PyPIcloudpathlib>=0.7.0setup.cfg
PyPIsmart-open>=5.2.1setup.cfg
PyPIhttpx>=0.24.0setup.cfg
PyPIpydantic>=2.0.0setup.cfg
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcloudpathlib—direct
PyPIconfection—direct
PyPIhttpx—direct
PyPIpackaging—direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIsmart-open—direct
PyPIsrsly—direct
PyPItyper—direct
PyPIwasabi—direct
PyPIblack22.3.0indirect
PyPIisort—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIpre-commit—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools—indirect
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 explosion/weasel. Read them side by side →

100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100PrefectHQ/prefectPrefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python.Exceptional100streamlit/streamlitStreamlit — A faster way to build and share data apps.Exceptional100astropy/astropyAstronomy and astrophysics core libraryExceptional100matplotlib/matplotlibmatplotlib: plotting with PythonExceptional100ray-project/rayRay is an AI compute engine. Ray consists of a core distributed runtime and a set of AI Libraries for accelerating ML workloads.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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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