Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 05:36 UTC

igerber / diff-diff

Difference-in-Differences causal inference in Python. Callaway-Sant'Anna, Synthetic DiD, Honest DiD, event studies. sklearn-like API, validated against R.

PythonMIT★ 392 stars⑂ 51 forkssince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗

igerber/diff-diff holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (57/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

92
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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

IsaacPersonal account
38 followers4 public repossince Jun 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
23.5/36Commit cadence — 34/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 3,231 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year3,231
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year34

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 82 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~7.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count82
latest_release_tagv3.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases7.7
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?

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42/60Stars — 392 stars
14.2/25Forks — 51 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks51
stars392
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
56.9/80Monthly downloads — 18,376 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdiff-diff
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads18,376
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.962
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance — 783/811 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs783
open_issues1
closed_issues15
prs_merged_7d10
prs_decided_7d14
prs_merged_30d49
prs_decided_30d56
issue_closed_ratio0.938
closed_unmerged_prs28
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.4/25Owner reach — 38 followers of igerber
13.6/25Track record — 4 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers38
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginigerber
public_repos4
account_age_days1,555
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

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 — 84 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdiff-diff
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 11 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://diff-diff.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 18 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsanalytics, causal-inference, difference-in-differences, econometrics, economics, data-science, did, event-study, panel-data, sensitivity-analysis, staggered-adoption, statistics, treatment-effects, parallel-trends, marketing-analytics, survey-design, synthetic-control, geo-experiments
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://diff-diff.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://diff-diff.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

79Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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_packages5
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:diff-diff@3.12.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 5 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 83 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.922
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes17,146
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsrust/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
40.9/55Manageable file sizes — 110/428 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes514,872
source_files_sampled428
oversized_source_files110
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 — notebooks
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

392GitHub stars
5contributors
3,231commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
82releases
1bus factor
1open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'diff_diff_rust' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 51 ⇿
0Stars
51Forks
70Releases

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.

01020304050605162026-012026-052026-09
Major 2Minor 20Patch 48
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 05:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=1.20.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=1.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.10pyproject.toml
crates.iopyo30.29rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ionumpy0.29rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iondarray0.17rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iorand0.10rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_xoshiro0.8rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iorayon1.8rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iofaer0.24rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioblas-src0.14rust/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioblas-src—direct
crates.iofaer—direct
crates.iondarray—direct
crates.ionumpy—direct
crates.iopyo3—direct
crates.iorand—direct
crates.iorand_xoshiro—direct
crates.iorayon—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPIscipy—direct
npm@asamuzakjp/css-color5.1.11indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/dom-selector7.1.1indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/generational-cache1.0.1indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/nwsapi2.3.9indirect
npm@bramus/specificity2.4.2indirect
npm@csstools/color-helpers6.1.0indirect
npm@csstools/css-calc3.2.1indirect
npm@csstools/css-color-parser4.1.9indirect
npm@csstools/css-parser-algorithms4.0.0indirect
npm@csstools/css-syntax-patches-for-csstree1.1.6indirect
npm@csstools/css-tokenizer4.0.0indirect
npm@exodus/bytes1.15.1indirect
npmbidi-js1.0.3indirect
npmcss-tree3.2.1indirect
npmdata-urls7.0.0indirect
npmdecimal.js10.6.0indirect
npmentities8.0.0indirect
npmhtml-encoding-sniffer6.0.0indirect
npmis-potential-custom-element-name1.0.1indirect
npmjsdom29.1.1indirect
npmlru-cache11.5.2indirect
npmmdn-data2.27.1indirect
npmparse58.0.1indirect
npmpunycode2.3.1indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
npmsaxes6.0.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmsymbol-tree3.2.4indirect
npmtldts7.4.9indirect
npmtldts-core7.4.9indirect
npmtough-cookie6.0.2indirect
npmtr466.0.0indirect
npmundici7.29.0indirect
npmw3c-xmlserializer5.0.0indirect
npmwebidl-conversions8.0.1indirect
npmwhatwg-mimetype5.0.0indirect
npmwhatwg-url16.0.1indirect
npmxml-name-validator5.0.0indirect
npmxmlchars2.2.0indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIipython—indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPImaturin—indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPInbmake—indirect
PyPInbsphinx—indirect
PyPIplotly—indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIruff0.16.5indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-design—indirect
PyPIsphinx-sitemap—indirect
PyPIsphinxext-opengraph—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:diff-diff@3.12.0 pulls in 5 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.