Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 00:29 UTC

facelessuser / wcmatch

Wilcard File Name matching library

PythonMIT★ 164 stars⑂ 15 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

facelessuser/wcmatch holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Isaac MusePersonal account
469 followers79 public repossince Sep 2011

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
PyPIwcmatch11.0-516 days agofnmatchglobsearchwildcard

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

59Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 6 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18Commit volume — 14 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year14
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 51 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~154.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count51
latest_release_tag11.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases154.4
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

48Weak
How it's scored
35.9/60Stars — 164 stars
9.6/25Forks — 15 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars164
watchers4
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 (MIT)
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.996

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
41.5/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
28.2/30PR acceptance — 140/149 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs140
open_issues1
closed_issues85
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.988
closed_unmerged_prs9
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

68Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
19.2/25Owner reach — 469 followers of facelessuser
25/25Track record — 79 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers469
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginfacelessuser
public_repos79
account_age_days5,417
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 6 days ago
20/20Version history — 51 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswcmatch
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish6

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

58Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://facelessuser.github.io/wcmatch/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://facelessuser.github.io/wcmatch/
docs_sitehttps://facelessuser.github.io/wcmatch/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5
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.

32At 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)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — wcmatch/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configswcmatch/py.typed
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

74Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (wcmatch/py.typed)
46.8/55Manageable file sizes — 3/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes74,934
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

164GitHub stars
3contributors
14commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
51releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 00:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 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
10Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIbracex>=3.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 11

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbracex—direct
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIhatchling—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIpymdown-lexers—indirect
PyPIpyspelling—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIzensical—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 facelessuser/wcmatch. Read them side by side →

78sindresorhus/globbyUser-friendly glob matchingGood73onury/accesscontrolRole and Attribute based Access Control for Node.jsGood63kaelzhang/node-ignore🔍 node-ignore is the manager and filter for .gitignore rules, the one used by eslint, prettier and many others.Moderate62micromatch/micromatchHighly optimized wildcard and glob matching library. Faster, drop-in replacement to minimatch and multimatch. Used by square, webpack, babel core, yarn, jest, ract-native, taro, bulma, browser-sync, stylelint, nyc, ava, and many others! Follow micromatch's author: https://github.com/jonschlinkertModerate100deepset-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.Exceptional98RediSearch/RediSearchA query and indexing engine for Redis, providing secondary indexing, full-text search, vector similarity search and aggregations.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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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