Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 15:24 UTC

freakboy3742 / briefcase

Tools to support converting a Python project into a standalone native application.

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 0 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Oct 2017forkView on GitHub ↗

KindPluginCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

freakboy3742/briefcase holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (13/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Russell Keith-MageePersonal account

1,971 followers97 public repossince Nov 2008

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	Tags
PyPI	briefcasepoints to another repo — not scored	0.4.5	28,528	67	5 days ago	app packaging installer macos ios android mobile windows linux flatpak appimage deb rpm pkg tvos watch watchos wearos web pyscript pyodide
PyPI	briefcase-debugger	0.4.5	250	9	5 days ago	—

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

94Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 3 days ago
29.8/36	Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 326 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	326
human_commit_share	0.54
days_since_last_push	3
active_weeks_last_year	43

Release discipline

80Excellent

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 51 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36	Release recency — latest release 67 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~57.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	51
latest_release_tag	v0.4.4
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	67
mean_days_between_releases	57.3

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?

13Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

2Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
2.5/25	Forks — 3 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	3
stars	0
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	no
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 46 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	99
top_contributor_share	0.601

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30	PR acceptance — 0/12 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	12
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

73Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
23.7/25	Owner reach — 1,971 followers of freakboy3742
25/25	Track record — 97 public repos, account ~17 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,971
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	freakboy3742
public_repos	97
account_age_days	6,496

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 5 days ago
20/20	Version history — 9 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	briefcase-debugger
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — debugger/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

0/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://briefcase.readthedocs.io/
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://briefcase.readthedocs.io/
docs_site	https://briefcase.readthedocs.io/
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	no

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 46 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 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 — no SAST tool detected
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	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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	41
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:briefcase@0.4.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 41 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 47 of 54 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.87
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	12,540

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

41Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — debugger/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 46 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.46

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 3/587 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	81,423
source_files_sampled	587
oversized_source_files	3

Key facts

0GitHub stars

99contributors

326commits, last 12 months

3days since last push

51releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Community profile unavailable
pypi package 'briefcase' points at a different repository (https://github.com/beeware/briefcase); excluded from ecosystem scoring
Could not fetch pypi package 'x-briefcase-automation' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿

0Stars

3Forks

15Releases

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 0Patch 15

Each point covers 4 days.

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 · 2026-09-13 15:23 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 46 contributing companies or organizations
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	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	no SAST tool detected
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 19

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	packaging	`>= 24.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pip	`>= 24.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	setuptools	`>= 60`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	wheel	`>= 0.37`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	build	`>= 0.10`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	truststore	`>= 0.10.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cookiecutter	`>= 2.6.0, < 3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	chardet	`< 6.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	binaryornot	`< 0.5.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	dmgbuild	`>= 1.6.4, < 2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	GitPython	`>= 3.1, < 4.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	platformdirs	`>= 2.6, < 5.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psutil	`>= 5.9, < 8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dateutil	`>= 2.9.0.post0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx	`>= 0.20, < 1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`>= 12.6, < 16.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tenacity	`>= 8.0, < 10.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli	`>= 2.0, < 3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli_w	`>= 1.0, < 2.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 18 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	binaryornot	`—`	direct
PyPI	build	`—`	direct
PyPI	chardet	`—`	direct
PyPI	cookiecutter	`—`	direct
PyPI	dmgbuild	`—`	direct
PyPI	gitpython	`—`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`—`	direct
PyPI	packaging	`—`	direct
PyPI	pip	`—`	direct
PyPI	platformdirs	`—`	direct
PyPI	psutil	`—`	direct
PyPI	python-dateutil	`—`	direct
PyPI	rich	`—`	direct
PyPI	setuptools	`83.0.0`	direct
PyPI	tenacity	`—`	direct
PyPI	tomli-w	`—`	direct
PyPI	truststore	`—`	direct
PyPI	wheel	`—`	direct
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	coverage-conditional-plugin	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	debugpy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	httpx-retries	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	remote-pdb	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools-scm	`10.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	towncrier	`25.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	tox-uv	`1.35.2`	indirect
PyPI	ty	`0.0.56`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:briefcase@0.4.5 pulls in 41 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