Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 02:46 UTC

iver56 / audiomentations

A Python library for audio data augmentation. Useful for making audio ML models work well in the real world, not just in the lab.

PythonMIT★ 2,308 stars⑂ 220 forkssince Feb 2019View on GitHub ↗

iver56/audiomentations holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated 121 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Iver JordalPersonal account
401 followers161 public repossince Feb 2012ElevenLabs

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIaudiomentations0.43.1215,37048333 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

43Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 121 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume15 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push121
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases46 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 333 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~51.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv0.43.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release333
mean_days_between_releases51.1
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54.6/60Stars2,308 stars
19.5/25Forks220 forks
6.8/15Watchers18 watchers
Inputs used
forks220
stars2,308
watchers18
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
71.1/80Monthly downloads215,370 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesaudiomentations
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads215,370
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth26 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled26
top_contributor_share0.824
How it's scored
31.7/42Issue resolution75% of issues closed
28.1/30PR acceptance191/204 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs191
open_issues51
closed_issues156
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.754
closed_unmerged_prs13
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
18.7/25Owner reach401 followers of iver56
25/25Track record161 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers401
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginiver56
public_repos161
account_age_days5,283
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 333 days ago
20/20Version history48 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaudiomentations
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish333

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://iver56.github.io/audiomentations/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics12 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaudio, sound, data-augmentation, augmentation, sound-processing, python, machine-learning, music, deep-learning, audio-effects, audio-data-augmentation, dsp
has_wikino
homepagehttps://iver56.github.io/audiomentations/
docs_sitehttps://iver56.github.io/audiomentations/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 4 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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_packages33
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:audiomentations@0.43.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 33 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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
10.7/40Legible commit history20 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.2
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
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_files
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 sizes0/105 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes20,514
source_files_sampled105
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,308GitHub stars
26contributors
15commits, last 12 months
121days since last push
46releases
1bus factor
51open 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 ★ / 220 ⇿
0Stars
220Forks
46Releases

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.

0408012016020024021762019-022022-102026-06
Major 0Minor 42Patch 4

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 02:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 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 1/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 36 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaudioread3.0.1indirect
PyPIblackindirect
PyPIcoverage7.4.4indirect
PyPIfast-mp3-augment0.1.0indirect
PyPIlameenc1.4.2indirect
PyPIlameenc1.8.1indirect
PyPIlibrosaindirect
PyPIlibrosa0.10.2indirect
PyPIlibrosa0.11.0indirect
PyPIloudness0.1.0indirect
PyPImatplotlibindirect
PyPImkdocs1.5.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.3.2indirect
PyPInumba0.58.0indirect
PyPInumba0.61.0indirect
PyPInumpyindirect
PyPInumpy1.24.4indirect
PyPInumpy2.1indirect
PyPInumpy-audio-limiterindirect
PyPInumpy-minmaxindirect
PyPInumpy-rmsindirect
PyPIpydub0.25.1indirect
PyPIpyroomacoustics0.7.4indirect
PyPIpytest7.4.4indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-stretchindirect
PyPIpython-stretch0.3.1indirect
PyPIscipyindirect
PyPIscipy1.13.1indirect
PyPIscipy1.15.2indirect
PyPIsoxrindirect
PyPIsoxr0.3.5indirect
PyPIsoxr0.5.0.post1indirect
PyPItqdm4.66.3indirect
PyPItqdm4.67.1indirect
PyPItwineindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:audiomentations@0.43.1 pulls in 33 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.