Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 07:28 UTC

finite-sample / calibre

Advanced Calibration Models

PythonMIT★ 7 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

finite-sample/calibre holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (40/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

finite-sampleOrganization
3 followers68 public repossince Jun 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIcalibre0.14.02,31880 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
12.1/18Commit volume21 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year21
human_commit_share0.704
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases9 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~6.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv0.14.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases6.4

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars7 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars7
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.9/80Monthly downloads2,318 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescalibre
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads2,318
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
27.2/30PR acceptance29/32 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs29
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
4.3/25Owner reach3 followers of finite-sample
15.5/25Track record68 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers3
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginfinite-sample
public_repos68
account_age_days458

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history8 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescalibre
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://finite-sample.github.io/calibre/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscalibration, pava, near-isotonic, relaxed-pava
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://finite-sample.github.io/calibre/
docs_sitehttps://finite-sample.github.io/calibre/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.9

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages126
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 126 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.

87Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes21,193
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checkingcalibre/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice7 of the last 27 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance8 of the last 27 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configscalibre/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.259
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.296
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (calibre/py.typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes1/100 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes60,108
source_files_sampled100
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
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

7GitHub stars
1contributors
21commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
0open 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:calibre@0.14.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 07:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=1.20.0pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.15.0pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn>=1.6.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 126

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 123 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy2.5.3direct
PyPIscikit-learn1.9.0direct
PyPIscipy1.18.1direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIappnope1.0.0indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.2indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIcalibre0.14.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIclarabel0.11.1indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIcloudpickle3.1.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcomm0.2.3indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.3indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIcvxpy1.9.2indirect
PyPIcycler0.12.1indirect
PyPIdebugpy1.8.21indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdocstring-parser-fork0.0.16indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.1indirect
PyPIfastjsonschema2.22.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.5indirect
PyPIfonttools4.64.0indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.5.5indirect
PyPIhighspy1.15.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata9.0.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIipykernel7.3.0indirect
PyPIipython9.17.1indirect
PyPIipython-pygments-lexers1.1.1indirect
PyPIjedi0.20.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjoblib1.6.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIjupyter-cache1.0.1indirect
PyPIjupyter-client8.10.0indirect
PyPIjupyter-core5.9.1indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.5.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.11.1indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.2.2indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImyst-nb1.4.0indirect
PyPImyst-parser5.1.0indirect
PyPInarwhals2.25.0indirect
PyPInbclient0.11.0indirect
PyPInbformat5.11.1indirect
PyPInest-asyncio21.7.2indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIosqp1.1.3indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpandas3.0.5indirect
PyPIparso0.8.7indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIpillow12.3.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.7indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.2indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.53indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.3indirect
PyPIpy-canon1.0.0.post29.dev0+e103102indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydoclint0.9.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyzmq27.2.0indirect
PyPIqdldl0.1.9.post1indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIruff0.16.6indirect
PyPIscs3.3.1indirect
PyPIsetuptools84.0.0indirect
PyPIsimcheck0.0.0.post6.dev0+9dbd1f9indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9.2indirect
PyPIsparsediffpy0.3.0indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsqlalchemy2.0.52indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPItabulate0.10.0indirect
PyPIthreadpoolctl3.6.0indirect
PyPItornado6.5.8indirect
PyPItraitlets5.16.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.8indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.3indirect
PyPIzipp4.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 126 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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 statisticsPyPI.