Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 11:43 UTC

gouline / dbt-metabase

dbt + Metabase integration

PythonMIT★ 622 stars⑂ 88 forkssince Dec 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

gouline/dbt-metabase holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (63/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MikePersonal account
77 followers17 public repossince Jul 2012

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 publish
PyPIdbt-metabase1.7.5109,95390168 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
15/18Commit volume — 46 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year46
human_commit_share0.82
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 90 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~52.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count90
latest_release_tagv1.8.0rc1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases52.7
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.3/60Stars — 622 stars
16.2/25Forks — 88 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks88
stars622
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.2/80Monthly downloads — 109,953 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdbt-metabase
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads109,953
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 77% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 33 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.773
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.2/30PR acceptance — 221/244 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs221
open_issues0
closed_issues128
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs23
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.6/25Owner reach — 77 followers of gouline
21.1/25Track record — 17 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers77
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logingouline
public_repos17
account_age_days5,214
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 168 days ago
20/20Version history — 90 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdbt-metabase
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish168

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.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_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/dbt-metabase/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdbt, metabase, python, analytics, business-intelligence, data, data-modelling, elt, pypa, vizualisation
has_wikino
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/dbt-metabase/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/dbt-metabase/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-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 4/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
10.2/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: certifi 2026.10.18 (high 7.4)
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages11
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the pypi:dbt-metabase@1.7.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 11 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.getdbt.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 75 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.getdbt.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.915
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 18 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.18
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/18 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes23,647
source_files_sampled18
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

622GitHub stars
33contributors
46commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
90releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 88 ⇿
0Stars
88Forks
81Releases

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.

0204060801008822020-032023-072026-10
Major 1Minor 15Patch 58

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 11:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-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 4/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIPyYAML>=5.4.1pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.26.0pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=12.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 90

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 86 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIclick8.3.3direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIrequests2.33.1direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPIagate1.9.1indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIbuild1.5.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIdaff1.4.2indirect
PyPIdbt-adapters1.22.10indirect
PyPIdbt-common1.38.0indirect
PyPIdbt-core1.11.14indirect
PyPIdbt-extractor0.6.0indirect
PyPIdbt-postgres1.10.0indirect
PyPIdbt-protos1.0.474indirect
PyPIdbt-semantic-interfaces0.9.0indirect
PyPIdeepdiff8.6.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIid1.6.1indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.9.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisodate0.7.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.4.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPIleather0.4.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImashumaro3.14indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.8.0indirect
PyPImsgpack1.2.1indirect
PyPInetworkx3.4.2indirect
PyPInetworkx3.6.1indirect
PyPInh30.3.5indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIorderly-set5.5.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIparsedatetime2.6indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIprotobuf6.33.6indirect
PyPIpsycopg2-binary2.9.12indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.3indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.3indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.409indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-slugify8.0.4indirect
PyPIpytimeparse1.1.8indirect
PyPIpytz2026.2indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer44.0indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.12indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowplow-tracker1.1.0indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.6.0indirect
PyPItext-unidecode1.3indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItwine6.2.0indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260408indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.33.0.20260503indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItzdata2026.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.1indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:dbt-metabase@1.7.5 pulls in 11 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
certifi2026.10.18indirecthigh22026.10.19

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.