Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 01:01 UTC

huggingface / setfit

Efficient few-shot learning with Sentence Transformers

Jupyter Notebook · PythonApache-2.0★ 2,778 stars⑂ 261 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗

huggingface/setfit holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (75/100) and lowest on Security (21/100). It was last updated 78 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Hugging FaceOrganization
67,016 followers467 public repossince Feb 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIsetfit1.1.3-19372 days agonlpmachine-learningfewshot-learningtransformers

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

42Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 78 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume5 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push78
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases17 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 372 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~101 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv1.1.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release372
mean_days_between_releases101

Community & Adoption

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

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.9/60Stars2,778 stars
20.1/25Forks261 forks
7.1/15Watchers20 watchers
Inputs used
forks261
stars2,778
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
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?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth54 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled54
top_contributor_share0.435
How it's scored
24.5/42Issue resolution58% of issues closed
25.5/30PR acceptance229/269 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs229
open_issues150
closed_issues210
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.583
closed_unmerged_prs40
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach67,016 followers of huggingface
25/25Track record467 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers67,016
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginhuggingface
public_repos467
account_age_days3,468
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 372 days ago
20/20Version history19 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessetfit
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish372

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 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://hf.co/docs/setfit
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfew-shot-learning, nlp, sentence-transformers
has_wikino
homepagehttps://hf.co/docs/setfit
docs_sitehttps://hf.co/docs/setfit
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 lockfilespublished library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifestssetup.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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages56
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:setfit@1.1.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 56 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 instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.6/40Legible commit history48 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.48
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
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_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJupyter Notebook without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/89 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJupyter Notebook
largest_source_bytes40,383
source_files_sampled89
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesnotebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
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

2,778GitHub stars
54contributors
5commits, last 12 months
78days since last push
17releases
2bus factor
150open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code -9); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 261 ⇿
0Stars
261Forks
17Releases

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.

05010015020025030025882022-092024-082026-07
Major 1Minor 8Patch 8

Each point covers 4 days.

All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcrcmodindirect
PyPIdatasetsindirect
PyPIdatasets1.18.2indirect
PyPIdatasets2.0.0indirect
PyPIdeepspeed0.5.10indirect
PyPIevaluateindirect
PyPIevaluate0.1.2indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hubindirect
PyPIipdbindirect
PyPIjsonpickle1.1indirect
PyPInumpy1.19indirect
PyPIpackagingindirect
PyPIpandas1.1.5indirect
PyPIpsutil5.9.0indirect
PyPIpytorch-lightning1.5.8indirect
PyPIscikit-learnindirect
PyPIscikit-learn0.23.1indirect
PyPIscipyindirect
PyPIsentence-transformersindirect
PyPIsentencepiece0.1.96indirect
PyPItorch1.11indirect
PyPItorch1.12.0+cu113indirect
PyPItorch1.5.0indirect
PyPItorchmetrics0.6.2indirect
PyPItorchvision0.6.0indirect
PyPItqdm4.62.1indirect
PyPItransformersindirect
PyPItransformers4.15.0indirect
PyPItransformers4.20.0indirect
PyPItyperindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:setfit@1.1.3 pulls in 56 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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