Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 11:17 UTC

hostinger / api-python-sdk

Hostinger API Python SDK

PythonNo license detected★ 30 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

hostinger/api-python-sdk holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (78/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

586 followers117 public repossince Oct 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIhostinger_api3.13.08,454450 days agohostingeropenapipythonsdkrestapi

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
14.4/18Commit volume39 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year39
human_commit_share0.618
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases56 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count56
latest_release_tagv3.13.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.1

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.7/60Stars30 stars
8.3/25Forks11 forks
4.3/15Watchers7 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars30
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.4/80Monthly downloads8,454 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshostinger_api
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads8,454
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 87% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.873
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution0% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance3/3 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs3
open_issues2
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
19.9/25Owner reach586 followers of hostinger
25/25Track record117 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers586
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginhostinger
public_repos117
account_age_days5,021
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history45 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshostinger_api
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://developers.hostinger.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapi, hostinger, python, sdk, tools
has_wikino
homepagehttps://developers.hostinger.com
docs_sitehttps://developers.hostinger.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilespublished library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifestspyproject.toml, requirements.txt, setup.cfg, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
35.9/40Legible commit history37 of 55 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.673
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkinghostinger_api/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 89
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configshostinger_api/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (hostinger_api/py.typed)
53.9/55Manageable file sizes15/740 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes183,950
source_files_sampled740
oversized_source_files15

Key facts

30GitHub stars
3contributors
39commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
56releases
1bus factor
2open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:hostinger_api@3.13.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

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

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.

0246810121112025-042025-112026-06
Major 0Minor 0Patch 11

Each point covers 2 days.

Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIurllib3>= 2.7.0, < 3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>= 2.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>= 2pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions>= 4.7.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 11

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpydanticdirect
PyPIpython-dateutildirect
PyPItyping-extensionsdirect
PyPIurllib3direct
PyPIfilelockindirect
PyPIflake8indirect
PyPImypyindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPItoxindirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutilindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.