This library has moved to https://github.com/googleapis/google-cloud-python/tree/main/packages/google-cloud-language
googleapis/python-language holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (18/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.
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.
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.
How abandonment is assessed| 0/36 | Push recency — last push 1,118 days ago |
| 0/36 | Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits |
| 0/18 | Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived |
| commits_last_year | 0 |
| human_commit_share | 0.42 |
| days_since_last_push | 1,118 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 0 |
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 35 releases published |
| 0/36 | Release recency — latest release 1,119 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~36 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
| releases_count | 35 |
| latest_release_tag | v2.10.1 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 1,119 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 36 |
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
| 29.4/60 | Stars — 66 stars |
| 13.4/25 | Forks — 41 forks |
| 4.7/15 | Watchers — 8 watchers |
| forks | 41 |
| stars | 66 |
| watchers | 8 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
| 36/54 | Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 16/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 29% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 54 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |
| bus_factor | 3 |
| contributors_sampled | 54 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.289 |
| 42/42 | Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed |
| 22.4/30 | PR acceptance — 300/401 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 15/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| merged_prs | 300 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 40 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 1 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 101 |
| first_time_authors_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | — |
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain |
| 25/25 | Owner reach — 6,641 followers of googleapis |
| 25/25 | Track record — 900 public repos, account ~10 yr old |
| followers | 6,641 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | googleapis |
| public_repos | 900 |
| account_age_days | 3,843 |
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
| 0/24 | CI workflows |
| 0/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| has_ci | no |
| has_tests | no |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 0/10 | Topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
| topics | — |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | yes |
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 6/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 0/2.5 | CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |
| 0/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — project is archived |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 0/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — no data |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — no data |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 13 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 5 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 5.5 |
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.
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 42 of 42 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
| has_llms_txt | no |
| legible_history_share | 1 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 0/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 0/10 | Reproducible environment |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data |
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | no |
| lockfiles | — |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
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.
Each point covers 3 days.
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 8 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 0 | CI-Tests | 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 10 | Code-Review | all changesets reviewed |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |
| n/a | Dangerous-Workflow | no workflows found |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 0 | Maintained | project is archived |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| n/a | Pinned-Dependencies | no dependencies found |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| n/a | Token-Permissions | No tokens found |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.