Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 12:36 UTC

graphql-python / graphql-relay-py

A library to help construct a graphql-py server supporting react-relay

PythonMIT★ 144 stars⑂ 41 forkssince Sep 2015View on GitHub ↗

graphql-python/graphql-relay-py holds a health index of 47 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (64/100) and lowest on Vitality (21/100). It was last updated 1276 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

GraphQL PythonOrganization

180 followers23 public repossince Oct 2015

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	graphql-relay	3.2.0	41,718,195	26	1594 days ago	graphql relay api

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 1,276 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 — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	1,276
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 10 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,671 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~84.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	10
latest_release_tag	v3.1.5
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,671
mean_days_between_releases	84.4

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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

55Moderate

How it's scored

35/60	Stars — 144 stars
13.4/25	Forks — 41 forks
6.5/15	Watchers — 16 watchers

Inputs used

forks	41
stars	144
watchers	16
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 41,718,195 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	graphql-relay
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	41,718,195
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 55% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.546

Issue & PR responsiveness

60Moderate

How it's scored

33.3/42	Issue resolution — 79% of issues closed
18.8/30	PR acceptance — 10/16 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	10
open_issues	6
closed_issues	23
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.793
closed_unmerged_prs	6
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

68Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
16.2/25	Owner reach — 180 followers of graphql-python
22.1/25	Track record — 23 public repos, account ~10 yr old

Inputs used

followers	180
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	graphql-python
public_repos	23
account_age_days	3,977

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 1,594 days ago
20/20	Version history — 26 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	graphql-relay
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	1,594

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), tox.ini
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

24At Risk

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
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
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 — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	2.4

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	1
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:graphql-relay@3.2.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

10Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.6/40	Legible commit history — 18 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.18
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), tox.ini
11/11	Static type checking — .mypy.ini, src/graphql_relay/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	.mypy.ini, src/graphql_relay/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (.mypy.ini, src/graphql_relay/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/35 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	27,364
source_files_sampled	35
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

144GitHub stars

8contributors

0commits, last 12 months

1,276days since last push

10releases

1bus factor

6open 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 ★ / 41 ⇿

0Stars

41Forks

10Releases

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 2Minor 2Patch 6

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.4 / 10

2.4aggregate

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 12:35 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 1 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
0	Code-Review	Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0	Vulnerabilities	10 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	graphql-core	`~3.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`^4.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 47

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	graphql-core	`—`	direct
PyPI	graphql-core	`3.2.1`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.1.1`	direct
PyPI	appdirs	`1.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	atomicwrites	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`21.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	black	`20.8b1`	indirect
PyPI	black	`22.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	bump2version	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	check-manifest	`0.48`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`6.2`	indirect
PyPI	dataclasses	`0.8`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`4.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-resources	`5.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`0.942`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`21.3`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	pep517	`0.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	py	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`6.2.5`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`0.18.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-describe	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	regex	`2022.3.15`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	toml	`0.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`1.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`3.25.0`	indirect
PyPI	typed-ast	`1.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.6.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:graphql-relay@3.2.0 pulls in 1 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