Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 06:08 UTC

hostinger / api-python-sdk

Hostinger API Python SDK

PythonNo license detected★ 32 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

hostinger/api-python-sdk holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Security (21/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Hostinger InternationalOrganization · verified domain
664 followers118 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_api3.49.013,9911111 day agohostingeropenapipythonsdkrestapi

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 109 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year109
human_commit_share0.09
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.49.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases0.9

Community & Adoption

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

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.2/60Stars — 32 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars32
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no 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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
55.3/80Monthly downloads — 13,991 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshostinger_api
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads13,991
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?

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 79% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.787
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 4/4 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs4
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
20/20Verified domain
20.3/25Owner reach — 664 followers of hostinger
25/25Track record — 118 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers664
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginhostinger
public_repos118
account_age_days5,072

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 111 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshostinger_api
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), setup.cfg ([flake8])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
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://developers.hostinger.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 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?

21At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published 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.

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_packages8
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:hostinger_api@3.49.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 8 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.

38Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), setup.cfg ([flake8])
11/11Static type checking — hostinger_api/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
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 — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configshostinger_api/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (hostinger_api/py.typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes — 27/1,194 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes211,578
source_files_sampled1,194
oversized_source_files27

Key facts

32GitHub stars
6contributors
109commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

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

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

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 48

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.5direct
PyPIpython-dateutil—direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIurllib32.7.0direct
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.11.1indirect
PyPIcachetools7.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock—indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.6indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.15.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.8indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.11.0indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItox—indirect
PyPItox4.61.4indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil—indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20260807indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.4indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.9indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:hostinger_api@3.49.0 pulls in 8 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.