Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 06:20 UTC

eyelevelai / groundx-python

A Python SDK for accessing the GroundX APIs

PythonMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Dec 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

eyelevelai/groundx-python holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (52/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

eyelevelaiPersonal account

34 followers9 public repossince Nov 2017eyelevel.ai

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	groundx	4.0.6	85,668	232	4 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

92Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
28.4/36	Commit cadence — 41/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 722 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	722
human_commit_share	0.85
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	41

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~2.2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	4.0.6
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	4
mean_days_between_releases	2.2

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

18Critical

How it's scored

13.7/60	Stars — 8 stars
4/25	Forks — 4 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	4
stars	8
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	2
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

82Excellent

How it's scored

65.8/80	Monthly downloads — 85,668 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	groundx
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	85,668
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?

53Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

27At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
9.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	7
top_contributor_share	0.88

Issue & PR responsiveness

50Moderate

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
26.4/30	PR acceptance — 89/101 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	89
open_issues	2
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	3
prs_decided_7d	3
prs_merged_30d	28
prs_decided_30d	31
issue_closed_ratio	0
closed_unmerged_prs	12
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

50Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.1/25	Owner reach — 34 followers of eyelevelai
19.3/25	Track record — 9 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	34
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	eyelevelai
public_repos	9
account_age_days	3,221

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 4 days ago
20/20	Version history — 232 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	groundx
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://documentation.groundx.ai
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://documentation.groundx.ai
docs_site	https://documentation.groundx.ai
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	16
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:groundx@4.0.6 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 16 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.eyelevel.ai/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 74 of 85 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.eyelevel.ai/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.871
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	2,465

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — pyrightconfig.json, src/groundx/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 17 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	pyrightconfig.json, src/groundx/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.17
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

81Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json, src/groundx/py.typed)
53.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 6/262 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	127,889
source_files_sampled	262
oversized_source_files	6

Key facts

8GitHub stars

7contributors

722commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

2open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'groundx' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
pypi download figures for groundx carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿

0Stars

4Forks

32Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 4Patch 28

Each point covers 2 days.

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 · 2026-09-17 06:20 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 27

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	PyYAML	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiohttp	`>=3.8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	boto3	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	celery	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	celery-types	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	dateparser	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fastapi	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-api-python-client	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-api-python-client-stubs	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-auth-stubs	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	gspread	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx	`>=0.21.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx-aiohttp	`0.1.8`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	minio	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	openai	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pillow	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`==2.14.0b1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic-core	`>=2.18.2,<3.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	redis	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.4.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	smolagents	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tqdm	`>=4.60.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	types-PyYAML	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	types-boto3	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	types-dateparser	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	types-tqdm	`>=4.60.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`>= 4.0.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 131

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 34 direct and 97 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	aiohttp	`—`	direct
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.14.3`	direct
PyPI	boto3	`1.43.93`	direct
PyPI	celery	`5.6.3`	direct
PyPI	celery-types	`0.26.0`	direct
PyPI	dateparser	`1.4.3`	direct
PyPI	fastapi	`0.141.1`	direct
PyPI	google-api-python-client	`2.200.0`	direct
PyPI	google-api-python-client-stubs	`1.40.0`	direct
PyPI	google-auth-stubs	`0.3.0`	direct
PyPI	gspread	`6.2.1`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`—`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	direct
PyPI	httpx-aiohttp	`0.1.8`	direct
PyPI	minio	`7.2.20`	direct
PyPI	openai	`3.13.0`	direct
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.14.0b1`	direct
PyPI	pydantic-core	`—`	direct
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.48.0`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	redis	`8.1.0`	direct
PyPI	requests	`—`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	smolagents	`1.26.0`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`—`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`4.70.1`	direct
PyPI	types-boto3	`1.43.93`	direct
PyPI	types-dateparser	`1.4.3.20260907`	direct
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260906`	direct
PyPI	types-tqdm	`—`	direct
PyPI	types-tqdm	`4.70.0.20260906`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	aiosignal	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	amqp	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	argon2-cffi	`25.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	argon2-cffi-bindings	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	async-timeout	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-asyncio-runner	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	billiard	`4.2.4`	indirect
PyPI	botocore	`1.43.93`	indirect
PyPI	botocore-stubs	`1.43.67`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	click-didyoumean	`0.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	click-plugins	`1.1.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	click-repl	`0.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.6`	indirect
PyPI	frozenlist	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	fsspec	`2026.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	google-api-core	`2.36.0`	indirect
PyPI	google-auth	`2.58.0`	indirect
PyPI	google-auth-httplib2	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	google-auth-oauthlib	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	googleapis-common-protos	`1.75.3`	indirect
PyPI	grpc-stubs	`1.53.0.6`	indirect
PyPI	grpcio	`1.83.1`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hf-xet	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore2	`2.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	httplib2	`0.32.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2	`2.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2-jsfetch	`1.0`	indirect
PyPI	huggingface-hub	`1.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.19`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jiter	`0.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	jmespath	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	kombu	`5.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	oauthlib	`3.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.53`	indirect
PyPI	propcache	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	proto-plus	`1.28.4`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`7.36.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1	`0.6.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1-modules	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycryptodome	`3.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2026.3.post1`	indirect
PyPI	regex	`2026.9.10`	indirect
PyPI	requests-oauthlib	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.11.5`	indirect
PyPI	s3transfer	`0.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	types-httplib2	`0.32.0.20260720`	indirect
PyPI	types-python-dateutil	`2.9.0.20260807`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.33.0.20260906`	indirect
PyPI	types-s3transfer	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.4`	indirect
PyPI	tzlocal	`5.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	uritemplate	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	vine	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.24.5`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:groundx@4.0.6 pulls in 16 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records