Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 17:59 UTC

iscc / iscc-sdk

ISCC - Software Development Kit

PythonApache-2.0★ 22 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Jan 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#media#identifier#similarity#iscc

iscc/iscc-sdk holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated 25 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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

ISCC FoundationOrganization · verified domain
37 followers39 public repossince Feb 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIiscc-sdk0.9.52,1204341 days agoisccidentifiermediacontentsimilarity

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 25 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 100 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year100
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push25
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 42 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv0.9.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release42
mean_days_between_releases16.5
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

28At Risk
How it's scored
21.4/60Stars — 22 stars
6.5/25Forks — 7 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars22
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesapp.codacy.com, codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

56Moderate
How it's scored
44.4/80Monthly downloads — 2,120 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesiscc-sdk
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,120
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

23At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.995

Issue & PR responsiveness

45Weak
How it's scored
36.8/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
2.5/30PR acceptance — 8/97 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs8
open_issues8
closed_issues57
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.877
closed_unmerged_prs89
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.

Ownership & stewardship

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
11.4/25Owner reach — 37 followers of iscc
23.7/25Track record — 39 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers37
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginiscc
public_repos39
account_age_days2,777

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 41 days ago
20/20Version history — 43 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesiscc-sdk
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish41

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://sdk.iscc.codes
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmedia, identifier, similarity, iscc
has_wikino
homepagehttps://sdk.iscc.codes
docs_sitehttps://sdk.iscc.codes
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 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 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

68Good
How it's scored
10.4/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: exiv2 0.19.2 (high 8.8)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
32.8/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 3,394 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories9
affected_packages1
assessed_packages40
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the pypi:iscc-sdk@0.9.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 40 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 97 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.97
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
8/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/52 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes42,193
source_files_sampled52
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

22GitHub stars
3contributors
100commits, last 12 months
25days since last push
10releases
1bus factor
8open 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 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks

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.

1234567712022-102024-022025-06

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 17:59 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-Tests3 out of 3 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 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 25
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIblake3—pyproject.toml
PyPIloguru—pyproject.toml
PyPIbitarray—pyproject.toml
PyPIxxhash—pyproject.toml
PyPIiscc-schema>=0.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-magic-pure—pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs—pyproject.toml
PyPIjmespath—pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow—pyproject.toml
PyPIpytaglib—pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy—pyproject.toml
PyPIpypdf—pyproject.toml
PyPIebookmeta—pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-docx—pyproject.toml
PyPItyper—pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow-heif—pyproject.toml
PyPIlangcodes—pyproject.toml
PyPIexiv2—pyproject.toml
PyPIiscc-tika—pyproject.toml
PyPIbleach—pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow-avif-plugin—pyproject.toml
PyPIiscc-lib—pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-settings—pyproject.toml
PyPIpypdfium2—pyproject.toml
PyPIresvg_py—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 111

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 26 direct and 85 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbitarray3.9.2direct
PyPIblake31.0.9direct
PyPIbleach6.4.0direct
PyPIebookmeta1.2.11direct
PyPIexiv20.19.0direct
PyPIiscc-lib0.6.0direct
PyPIiscc-schema0.8.0direct
PyPIiscc-tika0.6.0direct
PyPIjmespath1.1.0direct
PyPIlangcodes3.5.1direct
PyPIloguru0.7.3direct
PyPInumpy2.4.6direct
PyPInumpy2.5.1direct
PyPIpillow12.3.0direct
PyPIpillow-avif-plugin1.6.0direct
PyPIpillow-heif1.5.0direct
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0direct
PyPIpydantic-settings2.14.2direct
PyPIpypdf6.14.2direct
PyPIpypdfium25.12.1direct
PyPIpytaglib3.2.0direct
PyPIpython-docx1.2.0direct
PyPIpython-magic-pure0.1.0direct
PyPIresvg-py0.3.3direct
PyPItyper0.27.0direct
PyPIxxhash3.8.1direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.5indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcodetiming1.4.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.2indirect
PyPIflatbuffers25.12.19indirect
PyPIfsspec2026.7.0indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhf-xet1.5.2indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub1.26.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIiscc-samples0.6.0indirect
PyPIiscc-sci0.3.0indirect
PyPIiscc-sct0.2.1indirect
PyPIiscc-sdk0.9.5indirect
PyPIjcs0.2.1indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.1indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.2indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdformat0.7.22indirect
PyPImdformat-admon2.1.1indirect
PyPImdformat-tables1.0.0indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.6indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPIonnxruntime1.28.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpastel0.2.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpoethepoet0.48.0indirect
PyPIprotobuf7.35.1indirect
PyPIpuremagic1.30indirect
PyPIpuremagic2.2.0indirect
PyPIpybase641.4.3indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.0indirect
PyPIsemantic-text-splitter0.32.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItokenizers0.23.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
PyPIwebencodings0.5.1indirect
PyPIwin32-setctime1.2.0indirect
PyPIzuban0.9.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:iscc-sdk@0.9.5 pulls in 40 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
exiv20.19.2directhigh9—

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with iscc/iscc-sdk. Read them side by side →

75iscc/iscc-libHigh-performance polyglot (Rust + language bindings) implementation of ISO 24138:2024 International Standard Content Code (ISCC)Good94sanity-io/pluginsThis monorepo is the home for Sanity Studio plugins maintained by Sanity staff and the community. It provides a centralized place for developing, testing, and publishing plugins that extend Sanity Studio's functionality.Exceptional97facebookresearch/faissA library for efficient similarity search and clustering of dense vectors.Exceptional93GeiserX/Telegram-ArchiveOwn your Telegram history. Automated, incremental backups with a local web viewer that feels just like the real app. Docker-ready and supports public chat sharingExceptional93moq-dev/moqMedia over QUIC: Real-time latency at massive scaleExceptional92AcademySoftwareFoundation/OpenRVOpen source version of RV, the Sci-Tech award-winning media review and playback software.Excellent

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.