Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-29 00:10 UTC

gyorilab / mira

MIRA: machine-assisted modeling of dynamical systems

Jupyter NotebookBSD-2-Clause★ 14 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Jul 2022View on GitHub ↗

gyorilab/mira holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

38 followers66 public repossince Jul 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPImirapoints to another repo — not scored0.9.36325115229 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 262 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year262
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 603 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~51.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tag0.10.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release603
mean_days_between_releases51.3
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars — 14 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars14
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 34 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.361
How it's scored
34.9/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 341/357 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_prs341
open_issues18
closed_issues89
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.832
closed_unmerged_prs16
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.4/25Owner reach — 38 followers of gyorilab
25/25Track record — 66 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers38
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logingyorilab
public_repos66
account_age_days2,994

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black], [tool.isort]), setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdifferential-equations, epidemiology, knowledge-graphs, modeling, modeling-and-simulation, ontologies, systems-biology
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
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
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
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 34 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages42
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:mira@0.9.36 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 42 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.3/40Legible commit history — 10 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black], [tool.isort]), setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Jupyter Notebook without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 1/190 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJupyter Notebook
largest_source_bytes74,912
source_files_sampled190
oversized_source_files1
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 — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

14GitHub stars
11contributors
262commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
9releases
2bus factor
18open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi package 'mira' points at a different repository (https://github.com/faustomorales/mira); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
9Releases

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.

0246810121112022-082024-072026-07
Major 0Minor 8Patch 1

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-29 00:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 34 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpydantic>=2.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIsympy>=1.14.0setup.cfg
PyPItyping_extensions—setup.cfg
PyPInetworkx—setup.cfg
PyPItqdm—setup.cfg
PyPIsbmlmath<0.4.0setup.cfg
PyPIrequests—setup.cfg
PyPIurllib3<2.0setup.cfg
PyPIjsonschema—setup.cfg
PyPItabulate—setup.cfg
PyPIpysd—setup.cfg
PyPImore_itertools—setup.cfg
PyPIindra@ git+https://github.com/gyorilab/indra.git@mastersetup.cfg
PyPIpysb@ git+https://github.com/pysb/pysb.gitsetup.cfg
PyPIdecorator>=5.0.0setup.cfg
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdecorator—direct
PyPIjsonschema—direct
PyPImore-itertools—direct
PyPInetworkx—direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpysd—direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIsbmlmath—direct
PyPIsympy—direct
PyPItabulate—direct
PyPItqdm—direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIbiomappings—indirect
PyPIbioontologies—indirect
PyPIbioregistry—indirect
PyPIbioversions—indirect
PyPIbootstrap-flask—indirect
PyPIclick—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIfastapi—indirect
PyPIflasgger—indirect
PyPIflask—indirect
PyPIgilda—indirect
PyPIgrape—indirect
PyPIgunicorn—indirect
PyPIhttpx—indirect
PyPIlxml—indirect
PyPIm2r2—indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPImatplotlib-venn—indirect
PyPImineru2.6.4indirect
PyPImock—indirect
PyPImore-click—indirect
PyPIneo4j—indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPIopenai—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpint—indirect
PyPIpygraphviz—indirect
PyPIpyobo—indirect
PyPIpystow—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout—indirect
PyPIpython-libsbml—indirect
PyPIrdflib—indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints—indirect
PyPIsphinx-automodapi—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIultralytics-thop—indirect
PyPIuvicorn—indirect
PyPIwget—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mira@0.9.36 pulls in 42 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.

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.