Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-14 00:52 UTC

fgmacedo / python-statemachine

Expressive statecharts and FSMs for modern Python.

PythonMIT★ 1,324 stars⑂ 116 forkssince Mar 2017View on GitHub ↗

#state-machine #statemachine #automata #finite-state-machine #python #fsm #fsm-library #state #state-machine-diagram #state-machine-dsl #state-management #scxml #statechart #statecharts #hierarchical-state-machine #hsm #harel-statechart

fgmacedo/python-statemachine holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (59/100). It was last updated today. 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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Fernando MacedoPersonal account

136 followers26 public repossince May 2010

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	python-statemachine	3.2.2	1,391,217	42	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36	Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 146 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 29 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	146
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	17

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 19 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~78.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	19
latest_release_tag	v3.2.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	78.6

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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

74Good

How it's scored

50.6/60	Stars — 1,324 stars
17.2/25	Forks — 116 forks
6.5/15	Watchers — 16 watchers

Inputs used

forks	116
stars	1,324
watchers	16
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

78Good

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
7.2/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	yes
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 1,391,217 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	python-statemachine
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	1,391,217
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

28At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 25 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	25
top_contributor_share	0.89

Issue & PR responsiveness

61Moderate

How it's scored

39/42	Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
15.2/30	PR acceptance — 243/480 decided PRs merged
5.2/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	243
open_issues	12
closed_issues	158
prs_merged_7d	17
prs_decided_7d	21
prs_merged_30d	18
prs_decided_30d	22
issue_closed_ratio	0.929
closed_unmerged_prs	237
first_time_authors_30d	5
first_time_prs_merged_30d	2
first_time_prs_decided_30d	5

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.4/25	Owner reach — 136 followers of fgmacedo
22.4/25	Track record — 26 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	136
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	fgmacedo
public_repos	26
account_age_days	5,991

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 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 42 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	python-statemachine
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://python-statemachine.readthedocs.io
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 17 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	state-machine, statemachine, automata, finite-state-machine, python, fsm, fsm-library, state, state-machine-diagram, state-machine-dsl, state-management, scxml, statechart, statecharts, hierarchical-state-machine, hsm, harel-statechart
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://python-statemachine.readthedocs.io
docs_site	https://python-statemachine.readthedocs.io
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

76Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

70Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 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
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 29 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	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	7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	104
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 104 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

74Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 85 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.85
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	15,932

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

54Moderate

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 — statemachine/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	statemachine/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (statemachine/py.typed)
54.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/267 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	71,249
source_files_sampled	267
oversized_source_files	1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

1,324GitHub stars

25contributors

146commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

19releases

1bus factor

12open 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:python-statemachine@3.2.2; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 116 ⇿

0Stars

116Forks

18Releases

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 2Minor 7Patch 9

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10

7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-14 00:52 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
10	CI-Tests	23 out of 23 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
1	Code-Review	Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	29 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 104

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 104 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	accessible-pygments	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	asgiref	`3.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-asyncio-runner	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.16.2`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	django	`5.2.18`	indirect
PyPI	django	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2025.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.20`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.20`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`4.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pdbr	`0.9.8`	indirect
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.12.3`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	py-cpuinfo2	`10.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pydot	`4.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyreadline3	`3.5.6`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.414`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-benchmark	`5.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-django	`4.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-sugar	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-timeout	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-statemachine	`3.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`2026.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.10`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.10`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autobuild	`2024.10.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autobuild	`2025.8.25`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-basic-ng	`1.0.0b2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-copybutton	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-gallery	`0.22.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-mermaid	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlparse	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	termcolor	`3.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.5`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.54.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.14.5`	indirect
PyPI	watchfiles	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`16.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`17.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 104 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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