Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-08 19:17 UTC

inveniosoftware / invenio-admin

Invenio admin module.

PythonMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 37 forkssince Oct 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

inveniosoftware/invenio-admin holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated 23 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

202 followers170 public repossince Oct 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIinvenio-admin1.6.133,2932623 days agoadminflask-admininvenio

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 23 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume12 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push23
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases20 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 23 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~187.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv1.6.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release23
mean_days_between_releases187.8
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
13/25Forks37 forks
10.6/15Watchers82 watchers
Inputs used
forks37
stars2
watchers82
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
60.3/80Monthly downloads33,293 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesinvenio-admin
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads33,293
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?

87Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth21 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.257
How it's scored
40.8/42Issue resolution97% of issues closed
28.6/30PR acceptance79/83 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 10/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs79
open_issues1
closed_issues33
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.971
closed_unmerged_prs4
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
16.6/25Owner reach202 followers of inveniosoftware
25/25Track record170 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers202
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logininveniosoftware
public_repos170
account_age_days5,398
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 23 days ago
20/20Version history26 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesinvenio-admin
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish23

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://invenio-admin.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://invenio-admin.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://invenio-admin.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 10/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
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
3/7.5Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.5
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
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_packages128
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:invenio-admin@1.6.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 128 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history87 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.87
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
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-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/17 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes11,617
source_files_sampled17
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
21contributors
12commits, last 12 months
23days since last push
20releases
3bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 37 ⇿
0Stars
37Forks
19Releases

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.

01325383732015-102020-122026-03
Major 1Minor 6Patch 12

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 19:16 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
5CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 10/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIflask-admin>=1.5.6,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIflask-menu>=0.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIflask-principal>=0.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIinvenio-accounts>=1.2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIinvenio-app>=1.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIinvenio-base>=2.3.2pyproject.toml
PyPIinvenio-db>=1.0.9pyproject.toml
PyPIinvenio-i18n>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIwtforms<3.2.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIflask-admindirect
PyPIflask-menudirect
PyPIflask-principaldirect
PyPIinvenio-accountsdirect
PyPIinvenio-appdirect
PyPIinvenio-basedirect
PyPIinvenio-dbdirect
PyPIinvenio-i18ndirect
PyPIwtformsdirect
PyPIbabelindirect
PyPIinvenio-accessindirect
PyPIinvenio-themeindirect
PyPIpytest-black-ngindirect
PyPIpytest-invenioindirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:invenio-admin@1.6.1 pulls in 128 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.