Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-18 21:45 UTC

haidaraM / ansible-playbook-grapher

A command line tool to create a graph representing your Ansible playbook tasks and roles

PythonGPL-3.0★ 763 stars⑂ 57 forkssince Oct 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#ansible #graphviz #ansible-playbook #ansible-role #playbook #python #grapher

haidaraM/ansible-playbook-grapher holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (75/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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

Ownership

Mohamed El Mouctar HaidaraPersonal account

83 followers20 public repossince Nov 2014

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	ansible-playbook-grapher	2.11.1	1,852	67	78 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

64Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 17 days ago
10.4/36	Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18	Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	45
human_commit_share	0.38
days_since_last_push	17
active_weeks_last_year	15

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 78 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~65.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	34
latest_release_tag	v2.11.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	78
mean_days_between_releases	65.8

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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

68Good

How it's scored

46.7/60	Stars — 763 stars
14.6/25	Forks — 57 forks
6.4/15	Watchers — 15 watchers

Inputs used

forks	57
stars	763
watchers	15
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 (GPL-3.0)
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	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, coveralls.io, github.com
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

54Moderate

How it's scored

43.6/80	Monthly downloads — 1,852 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	ansible-playbook-grapher
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	1,852
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.975

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good

How it's scored

39.7/42	Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
27.8/30	PR acceptance — 233/251 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	233
open_issues	3
closed_issues	52
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.945
closed_unmerged_prs	18
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

57Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.8/25	Owner reach — 83 followers of haidaraM
21.6/25	Track record — 20 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	83
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	haidaraM
public_repos	20
account_age_days	4,351

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 78 days ago
20/20	Version history — 67 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	ansible-playbook-grapher
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	78

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
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
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ansible, graphviz, ansible-playbook, ansible-role, playbook, python, grapher
has_wiki	no
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
4.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

72Good

How it's scored

13.2/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: ansible-core 2.18.2 (high 7.8)
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
33.5/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 135 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	2
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	13
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Matched the pypi:ansible-playbook-grapher@2.11.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 13 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://code.visualstudio.com/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 33 of 38 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://code.visualstudio.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.868
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 62 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.62

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	31,944
source_files_sampled	23
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

763GitHub stars

8contributors

45commits, last 12 months

17days since last push

34releases

1bus factor

3open 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 ★ / 57 ⇿

0Stars

57Forks

34Releases

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 14Patch 14

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10

4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-18 21:45 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10	CI-Tests	26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
6	Vulnerabilities	4 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	ansible-core	`>=2.16,<2.18.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	graphviz	`>=0.18,<1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	colour	`<1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	lxml	`<7`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	svg.path	`<8`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	ansible-core	`2.17.14`	direct
PyPI	ansible-core	`2.18.2`	direct
PyPI	colour	`0.1.5`	direct
PyPI	graphviz	`0.21`	direct
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.2`	direct
PyPI	svg-path	`7.1`	direct
PyPI	ansible-playbook-grapher	`2.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	arrow	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.13.5`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`48.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	cssselect	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	fqdn	`1.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isoduration	`20.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jq	`1.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonpointer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyquery	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	resolvelib	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3339-validator	`0.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3987	`1.3.8`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.5`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.1`	indirect
PyPI	uri-template	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	webcolors	`25.10.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:ansible-playbook-grapher@2.11.1 pulls in 13 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
ansible-core	`2.18.2`	direct	high	2	`2.21.1rc1`

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