Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 19:12 UTC

gerrymanoim / exchange_calendars

Calendars for various securities exchanges.

PythonApache-2.0★ 663 stars⑂ 176 forkssince Oct 2020forkView on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

gerrymanoim/exchange_calendars holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (62/100). It was last updated 13 days ago. 5 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

gerrymanoimPersonal account

67 followers71 public repossince Feb 2010

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	exchange_calendars	4.13.2	4,768,578	48	170 days ago	finance security calendar exchange

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 13 days ago
14.5/36	Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
16.6/18	Commit volume — 69 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	69
human_commit_share	0.89
days_since_last_push	13
active_weeks_last_year	21

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 51 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 170 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~39.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	51
latest_release_tag	4.13.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	170
mean_days_between_releases	39.5

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

70Good

How it's scored

45.8/60	Stars — 663 stars
18.7/25	Forks — 176 forks
6/15	Watchers — 13 watchers

Inputs used

forks	176
stars	663
watchers	13
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 (Apache-2.0)
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	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 4,768,578 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	exchange_calendars
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	4,768,578
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

86Excellent

How it's scored

45.9/54	Bus factor — 5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 94 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	5
contributors_sampled	94
top_contributor_share	0.243

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good

How it's scored

36.7/42	Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
25.1/30	PR acceptance — 346/413 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

merged_prs	346
open_issues	21
closed_issues	146
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	5
prs_decided_30d	5
issue_closed_ratio	0.874
closed_unmerged_prs	67
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.2/25	Owner reach — 67 followers of gerrymanoim
25/25	Track record — 71 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	67
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	gerrymanoim
public_repos	71
account_age_days	6,050

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 170 days ago
20/20	Version history — 48 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	exchange_calendars
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	170

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.black], [tool.isort]), ruff.toml
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

0/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/gerrymanoim/exchange_calendars/tree/master/docs
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	https://github.com/gerrymanoim/exchange_calendars/tree/master/docs
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?

63Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate

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
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 10/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 16 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 — 15 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 — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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	8
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:exchange_calendars@4.13.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 8 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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

73Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28.2/40	Legible commit history — 47 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.528
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	10,868

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.black], [tool.isort]), ruff.toml
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 9 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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	yes
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.05
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.09

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.1/55	Manageable file sizes — 3/175 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	164,411
source_files_sampled	175
oversized_source_files	3

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — notebooks

Inputs used

example_dirs	notebooks
has_mcp_signal	no
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

663GitHub stars

94contributors

69commits, last 12 months

13days since last push

51releases

5bus factor

21open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Community profile unavailable

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 176 ⇿

0Stars

176Forks

51Releases

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 1Patch 31

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10

5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 19:11 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3	Code-Review	Found 10/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10	Contributors	project has 16 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	15 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	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	numpy	`>=1.26.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pandas	`>=1.5.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyluach	`>=2.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	toolz	`>=1.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tzdata	`>=2025.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	korean_lunar_calendar	`>=0.3.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 38

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	korean-lunar-calendar	`0.4.0`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`1.26.4`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.6`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.5.2`	direct
PyPI	pandas	`2.3.3`	direct
PyPI	pandas	`3.0.5`	direct
PyPI	pyluach	`2.3.0`	direct
PyPI	toolz	`1.1.0`	direct
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.3`	direct
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.2`	indirect
PyPI	hypothesis	`6.165.3`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.19`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.2`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	py-cpuinfo	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-benchmark	`5.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2026.3.post1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.7.4`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:exchange_calendars@4.13.2 pulls in 8 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