Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-17 11:43 UTC

imi-bigpicture / opentile

Python library for reading tiles from wsi tiff-files.

PythonApache-2.0★ 20 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Sep 2021View on GitHub ↗

imi-bigpicture/opentile holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BigpictureOrganization
39 followers14 public repossince Apr 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIopentile0.25.09,502400 days agodigital-pathologytiffwhole-slide-image

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence14/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume82 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year82
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases40 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~56.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tagv0.25.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases56.2
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.7/60Stars20 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars20
watchers5
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
How it's scored
53/80Monthly downloads9,502 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesopentile
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads9,502
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.975
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution89% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance83/86 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs83
open_issues3
closed_issues24
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
11.5/25Owner reach39 followers of imi-bigpicture
19.2/25Track record14 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers39
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginimi-bigpicture
public_repos14
account_age_days1,936
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 history40 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopentile
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdigital-pathology, whole-slide-image, tiff
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages39
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 39 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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 instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
8.5/40Legible commit history16 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.16
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 checkingpyrightconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configspyrightconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/88 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes32,128
source_files_sampled88
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

20GitHub stars
5contributors
82commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
40releases
1bus factor
3open 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:opentile@0.25.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
35Releases

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.

12345512022-022024-042026-06
Major 0Minor 21Patch 14

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-17 11:43 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
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcachetools>=5.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItifffile>=2026.7.14pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.22.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyTurboJPEG>=1.7.3,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow>=10.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIimagecodecs>=2022.12.24pyproject.toml
PyPIdefusedxml>=0.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIome-types>=0.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml>=4.9.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfsspec>=2024.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIuniversal-pathlib>=0.3.0,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcachetools7.1.4direct
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1direct
PyPIfsspec2026.6.0direct
PyPIimagecodecs2026.6.26direct
PyPIlxml6.1.1direct
PyPInumpy2.5.1direct
PyPIome-types0.6.3direct
PyPIpillow12.3.0direct
PyPIpyturbojpeg1.8.3direct
PyPItifffile2026.7.14direct
PyPIuniversal-pathlib0.3.10direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdecoy2.6.0indirect
PyPIdocopt0.6.2indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIopentile0.25.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathlib-abc0.5.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-extra-types2.11.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-watch4.2.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIruff0.16.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItypos1.48.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIxsdata26.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 39 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.