Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 00:23 UTC

googleapis / python-crc32c

This library has moved to https://github.com/googleapis/google-cloud-python/tree/main/packages/google-crc32c

Shell · PythonApache-2.0★ 27 stars⑂ 32 forkssince Nov 2018archivedView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

googleapis/python-crc32c holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (87/100) and lowest on Vitality (41/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

19
overall / 100
Critical

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.

19
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Google APIsOrganization
6,600 followers899 public repossince Jan 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIgoogle-crc32c1.8.0-28212 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

41Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

21At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 106 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
8.6/18Commit volume — 8 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year8
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push106
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

70Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 25 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 213 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~52.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv1.8.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release213
mean_days_between_releases52.1
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?

66Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

44Weak
How it's scored
23/60Stars — 27 stars
12.4/25Forks — 32 forks
8.9/15Watchers — 41 watchers
Inputs used
forks32
stars27
watchers41
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 (Apache-2.0)
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

87Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

76Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 25% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 19 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.25

Issue & PR responsiveness

85Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
17.1/30PR acceptance — 156/273 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs156
open_issues0
closed_issues54
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs117
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach — 6,600 followers of googleapis
25/25Track record — 899 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers6,600
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_logingoogleapis
public_repos899
account_age_days3,831
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 212 days ago
20/20Version history — 28 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgoogle-crc32c
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish212

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

78Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

40Weak
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

62Moderate
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
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project is archived
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
1/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 36 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.2
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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

78Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — .kokoro/noxfile.py, noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8
11/11Static type checking — mypy.ini, src/google_crc32c/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files.kokoro/noxfile.py, noxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, src/google_crc32c/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Shell with type-check config (mypy.ini, src/google_crc32c/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageShell
largest_source_bytes9,198
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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 — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
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

27GitHub stars
19contributors
8commits, last 12 months
106days since last push
25releases
3bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 00:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests8 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities36 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 74

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 74 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIargcomplete3.6.3indirect
PyPIattrs25.3.0indirect
PyPIauditwheel—indirect
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIcachetools5.5.2indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.11.12indirect
PyPIcffi1.17.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer2.1.1indirect
PyPIclick8.0.4indirect
PyPIcmake3.31.6indirect
PyPIcolorlog6.10.1indirect
PyPIcryptography46.0.3indirect
PyPIdelocate—indirect
PyPIdependency-groups1.3.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.20.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIgcp-docuploader0.7.2indirect
PyPIgcp-releasetool2.6.1indirect
PyPIgoogle-api-core2.28.1indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth2.43.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-core2.5.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-storage3.7.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-crc32c1.5.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-resumable-media2.8.0indirect
PyPIgoogleapis-common-protos1.72.0indirect
PyPIhumanize4.10.0indirect
PyPIid1.5.0indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources6.4.5indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.0.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.1.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIkeyring25.5.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.5.0indirect
PyPInh30.3.2indirect
PyPInox2025.11.12indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpip25.0.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIproto-plus1.26.1indirect
PyPIprotobuf5.29.5indirect
PyPIpyasn10.6.1indirect
PyPIpyasn1-modules0.4.2indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.9.0indirect
PyPIpyperclip1.11.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer43.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.4indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich14.2.0indirect
PyPIrsa4.9.1indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.3.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools75.3.2indirect
PyPIsetuptools78.1.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItwine6.1.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.35.4indirect
PyPIwheel—indirect
PyPIwheel0.45.1indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with googleapis/python-crc32c. Read them side by side →

100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional100onnx/onnxOpen standard for machine learning interoperabilityExceptional100reflex-dev/reflex🕸️ Web apps in pure Python 🐍Exceptional100scikit-learn/scikit-learnscikit-learn: machine learning in PythonExceptional100psf/blackThe uncompromising Python code formatterExceptional100uxlfoundation/oneDNNoneAPI Deep Neural Network Library (oneDNN)Exceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.