Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 10:06 UTC

hardbyte / python-can

The can package provides controller area network support for Python developers

PythonLGPL-3.0★ 1,595 stars⑂ 697 forkssince Sep 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

hardbyte/python-can holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (86/100) and lowest on Vitality (49/100). It was last updated 75 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Brian ThornePersonal account
212 followers104 public repossince Jun 2011Hardbyte

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
PyPIpython-can4.6.13,369,78874398 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

49Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 75 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
13.5/18Commit volume — 31 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year31
human_commit_share0.85
days_since_last_push75
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 47 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 398 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~70.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tagv4.6.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release398
mean_days_between_releases70.5
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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
51.9/60Stars — 1,595 stars
23.7/25Forks — 697 forks
10.5/15Watchers — 79 watchers
Inputs used
forks697
stars1,595
watchers79
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (LGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 3,369,788 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespython-can
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,369,788
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.381
How it's scored
31.9/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance — 906/1,043 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs906
open_issues228
closed_issues721
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.76
closed_unmerged_prs137
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.7/25Owner reach — 212 followers of hardbyte
25/25Track record — 104 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers212
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginhardbyte
public_repos104
account_age_days5,568
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 398 days ago
20/20Version history — 74 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespython-can
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish398

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 29 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://python-can.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscan-bus, python
has_wikino
homepagehttps://python-can.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://python-can.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 29 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
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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_packages3
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:python-can@4.6.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 82 of 85 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.965
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — can/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 15 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configscan/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.15
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (can/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/155 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes52,418
source_files_sampled155
oversized_source_files0
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
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

1,595GitHub stars
98contributors
31commits, last 12 months
75days since last push
47releases
2bus factor
228open 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 ★ / 697 ⇿
0Stars
697Forks
47Releases

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.

012525037550062575067382016-102021-092026-09
Major 3Minor 11Patch 12

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 10:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
5CI-Tests15 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 12/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIwrapt>= 1.10, < 3pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging>= 23.1pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=3.10.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpackaging—direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPIwrapt—direct
PyPIasammdf—indirect
PyPIblack—indirect
PyPIcanalystii—indirect
PyPIcantact—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcoveralls—indirect
PyPIgs-usb—indirect
PyPIhypothesis—indirect
PyPImsgpack—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPInixnet—indirect
PyPIparameterized—indirect
PyPIpylint—indirect
PyPIpyserial—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-modern—indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout—indirect
PyPIpython-can-candle—indirect
PyPIpython-can-canine—indirect
PyPIpython-can-sontheim—indirect
PyPIpython-ics—indirect
PyPIpyusb—indirect
PyPIpywin32—indirect
PyPIrp1210—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIuptime—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:python-can@4.6.1 pulls in 3 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.