Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 05:02 UTC

inveniosoftware / invenio-preservation-sync

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗

inveniosoftware/invenio-preservation-sync holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 7 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

199 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-preservation-sync0.5.080367 days agoinveniopreservation

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 7 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
8.6/18Commit volume8 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_year8
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases6 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 8 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~120.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv0.5.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases120.5
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
4/25Forks4 forks
10.5/15Watchers79 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars0
watchers79
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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
38.7/80Monthly downloads803 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesinvenio-preservation-sync
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads803
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 35% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.348
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
24.5/30PR acceptance9/11 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs9
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
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
16.5/25Owner reach199 followers of inveniosoftware
25/25Track record170 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers199
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logininveniosoftware
public_repos170
account_age_days5,376
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 7 days ago
20/20Version history6 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesinvenio-preservation-sync
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish7

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 5 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_aggregate4.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
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_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/28 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes10,238
source_files_sampled28
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
5contributors
8commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
6releases
2bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 05:02 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 9/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 5 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 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIinvenio-base>=2.0.0,<3.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIinvenio-db>=2.2.0,<3.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIinvenio-webhooks>=4.0.0,<5.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIinvenio-records-permissions>=4.0.0,<5.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIinvenio-pidstore>=4.0.0,<5.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIinvenio-i18n>=4.0.0,<5.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIflask-resources>=1.0.0,<2.0.0setup.cfg
PyPImarshmallow-utils>=0.7.1,<1.0.0setup.cfg
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIflask-resourcesdirect
PyPIinvenio-basedirect
PyPIinvenio-dbdirect
PyPIinvenio-i18ndirect
PyPIinvenio-pidstoredirect
PyPIinvenio-records-permissionsdirect
PyPIinvenio-webhooksdirect
PyPImarshmallow-utilsdirect
PyPIinvenio-appindirect
PyPIinvenio-searchindirect
PyPIpytest-black-ngindirect
PyPIpytest-invenioindirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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