Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-27 15:44 UTC

frenck / python-peblar

Asynchronous Python client for Peblar EV chargers

PythonMIT★ 11 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Dec 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

frenck/python-peblar holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (61/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Franck NijhofPersonal account
5,025 followers141 public repossince Feb 2010@home-assistant @hassio-addons

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
PyPIpeblar2.1.037,680160 days agoapiasyncbluebuiltchargerchargersclientevhybridhome-assistantocpppeblar

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
27.7/36Commit cadence — 40/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 212 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year212
human_commit_share0.4
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year40
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~70.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv2.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases70.1
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars — 11 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars11
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
61/80Monthly downloads — 37,680 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespeblar
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads37,680
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?

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 78% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.779
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
29.7/30PR acceptance — 448/452 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs448
open_issues1
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d11
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach — 5,025 followers of frenck
25/25Track record — 141 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,025
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginfrenck
public_repos141
account_age_days6,080
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 — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespeblar
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint]), ruff.toml
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/frenck/python-peblar
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://github.com/frenck/python-peblar
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

78Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages2
assessed_packages83
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2
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 83 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.

71Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 40 of 40 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint]), ruff.toml
11/11Static type checking — src/peblar/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 11 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 60 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json, poetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/peblar/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.11
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.6
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/peblar/py.typed)
48.9/55Manageable file sizes — 2/18 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes90,130
source_files_sampled18
oversized_source_files2
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

11GitHub stars
9contributors
212commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:peblar@2.1.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 9 ⇿
0Stars
9Forks
16Releases

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.

035810922024-122025-112026-09
Major 2Minor 6Patch 8

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-27 15:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 7/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIaiohttp(>=3.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIawesomeversion(>=22.8.0)pyproject.toml
PyPImashumaro(>=3.10)pyproject.toml
PyPItenacity(>=8.0.0)pyproject.toml
PyPIorjson(>=3.9.8)pyproject.toml
PyPIyarl(>=1.6.0)pyproject.toml
All dependencies 83

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3direct
PyPIawesomeversion25.8.0direct
PyPImashumaro3.20direct
PyPIorjson3.12.0direct
PyPItenacity9.1.4direct
PyPIyarl1.23.0direct
npmprettier3.8.3indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaioresponses0.7.8indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIauthlib1.6.12indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.3.2indirect
PyPIcodespell2.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcovdefaults2.3.0indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdill0.4.1indirect
PyPIdparse0.6.4indirect
PyPIfilelock3.28.0indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIifaddr0.2.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjoblib1.5.3indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImarshmallow4.3.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPInltk3.10.3indirect
PyPIpackaging26.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIpip26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpoetry2.3.4indirect
PyPIpre-commit-hooks6.0.0indirect
PyPIprek0.3.9indirect
PyPIpropcache0.4.1indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.1indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.5indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.3.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIregex2026.4.4indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.1indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml0.19.1indirect
PyPIruff0.15.11indirect
PyPIsafety3.7.0indirect
PyPIsafety-schemas0.0.16indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsyrupy5.1.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.14.0indirect
PyPItqdm4.67.3indirect
PyPIty0.0.31indirect
PyPItyper0.24.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIyamllint1.38.0indirect
PyPIzeroconf0.149.16indirect
PyPIzizmor1.24.1indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 83 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.3.2indirecthigh18.3.3
nltk3.10.3indirecthigh1—

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 statistics — PyPI.