Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 06:26 UTC

fsspec / filesystem_spec

A specification that python filesystems should adhere to.

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 1,352 stars⑂ 479 forkssince Apr 2018View on GitHub ↗

fsspec/filesystem_spec 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 AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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

153 followers22 public repossince Oct 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIfsspec2026.7.0723,464,42010142 days agofile

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
29.8/36Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 118 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year118
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year43
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 42 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~42 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag2026.7.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release42
mean_days_between_releases42
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?

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50.8/60Stars — 1,352 stars
22.3/25Forks — 479 forks
6.4/15Watchers — 15 watchers
Inputs used
forks479
stars1,352
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, readthedocs.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 723,464,420 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfsspec
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads723,464,420
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?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 126 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.43
How it's scored
26.6/42Issue resolution — 63% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 1,092/1,181 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 8/8 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs1,092
open_issues310
closed_issues536
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d10
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio0.634
closed_unmerged_prs89
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d8
first_time_prs_decided_30d8
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.7/25Owner reach — 153 followers of fsspec
19.7/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers153
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginfsspec
public_repos22
account_age_days1,785

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 42 days ago
20/20Version history — 101 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfsspec
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish42

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://filesystem-spec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://filesystem-spec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 126 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 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 — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

48Weak · 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 — 90 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.9
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort])
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 1/113 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes79,802
source_files_sampled113
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

1,352GitHub stars
100contributors
118commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
310open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 479 ⇿
0Stars
479Forks
100Releases

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.

010020030040050047672018-042022-072026-09
Major 0Minor 51Patch 49

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 06:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 126 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 11

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiobotocore—indirect
PyPIaiohttp—indirect
PyPIgcsfs—indirect
PyPIhatchling—indirect
PyPImoto—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpyarrow—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIs3fs—indirect
PyPIzarr—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.