Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 11:20 UTC

finbourne / lusid-sdk-python

Python SDK for LUSID by FINBOURNE, a bi-temporal investment management data platform with portfolio accounting capabilities.

PythonCustom license★ 11 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Mar 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#lusid#finbourne#python#bi-temporal#fintech#data-platform#openapi

finbourne/lusid-sdk-python holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (77/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

69
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.

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

Ownership

FINBOURNEOrganization
41 followers147 public repossince Sep 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIlusid-sdk2.3.15161,1113,5070 days agoopenapiopenapi-generatorlusid-apilusid-sdk

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 318 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year318
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

31At Risk
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars — 11 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars11
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

80Excellent
How it's scored
63.8/80Monthly downloads — 61,111 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslusid-sdk
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads61,111
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?

77Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

57Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 23 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.316

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23.9/30PR acceptance — 91/114 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_prs91
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs23
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

83Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
11.7/25Owner reach — 41 followers of finbourne
25/25Track record — 147 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers41
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginfinbourne
public_repos147
account_age_days3,589
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 — 3,507 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslusid-sdk
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 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

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslusid, finbourne, python, bi-temporal, fintech, data-platform, openapi
has_wikiyes
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?

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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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
3/7.5Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, 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.

49Weak · 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)

74Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — sdk/lusid/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
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
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssdk/lusid/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

80Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (sdk/lusid/py.typed)
53.5/55Manageable file sizes — 44/1,599 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes791,151
source_files_sampled1,599
oversized_source_files44

Key facts

11GitHub stars
23contributors
318commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
2bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-19 11:20 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
4Vulnerabilities6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIurllib3^2.7.0sdk/pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil^2.8.2sdk/pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests^2sdk/pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp^3.13.4sdk/pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic^2.6.3sdk/pyproject.toml
PyPIaenum^3.1.11sdk/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 45 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaenum3.1.17direct
PyPIaiohttp3.14.1direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.4direct
PyPIpython-dateutil—direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIurllib32.7.0direct
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.7.1indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIcertifi—indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIfinbourne-sdk-utilities—indirect
PyPIflake84.0.1indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIlusid-sdk—indirect
PyPIlusidfeature—indirect
PyPImccabe0.6.1indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIparameterized—indirect
PyPIparameterized0.7.*indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.2indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.8.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme—indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest7.4.4indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio0.23.8indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpytz—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsix—indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIxeger0.4.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.24.2indirect
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 finbourne/lusid-sdk-python. Read them side by side →

99litestar-org/litestarLight, flexible and extensible ASGI framework | Built to scaleExceptional98fastapi/fastapiFastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for productionExceptional98microsoft/kiotaOpenAPI based HTTP Client code generatorExceptional100numpy/numpyThe fundamental package for scientific computing with Python.Exceptional100streamlit/streamlitStreamlit — A faster way to build and share data apps.Exceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK 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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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