Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 11:00 UTC

jawah / h2

HTTP/2 state-machine based protocol implementation with optional Rust hpack speedup

PythonMIT★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2024forkView on GitHub ↗

jawah/h2 holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Security (69/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

JawahOrganization
40 followers10 public repossince Jul 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIjh25.0.131,895,2361485 days agohttp2hpackh2

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 20 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
13.3/18Commit volume29 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year29
human_commit_share0.83
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

93Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases14 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 85 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~64.2 days
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv5.0.13
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release85
mean_days_between_releases64.2

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars3 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
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_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads1,895,236 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjh2
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads1,895,236
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 69% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth49 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 41 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled49
top_contributor_share0.688
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
18/30PR acceptance30/50 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs30
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs20
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
11.6/25Owner reach40 followers of jawah
13.8/25Track record10 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers40
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginjawah
public_repos10
account_age_days1,139
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 85 days ago
20/20Version history14 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjh2
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish85

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.isort])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://h2.readthedocs.io/en/stable
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://h2.readthedocs.io/en/stable
docs_sitehttps://h2.readthedocs.io/en/stable
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0.8/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 41 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
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
7.5/7.5Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.8
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: pyo3 0.28.3 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages1
assessed_packages20
unassessed_packages4
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 20 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.8/40Legible commit history23 of 83 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.277
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.isort])
11/11Static type checkingjh2/hyperframe/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance17 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsjh2/hyperframe/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.17
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (jh2/hyperframe/py.typed)
52.3/55Manageable file sizes3/61 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes168,334
source_files_sampled61
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

3GitHub stars
49contributors
29commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable
  • Could not fetch crates package 'jh2' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 11:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
3CI-Tests5 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 41 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
10Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iopyo30.28.2Cargo.toml
crates.iohttlib-hpack0.1.3Cargo.toml
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iohttlib-hpack0.1.3direct
crates.iopyo30.28.3direct
crates.iocc1.2.62indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.9indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.iohttlib-huffman0.3.4indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.13.1indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.28.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.28.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.28.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.28.3indirect
crates.iopython3-dll-a0.2.15indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.45indirect
crates.ioshlex1.3.0indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.117indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.5indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
PyPIhypothesisindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPIpytest-xdistindirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 20 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pyo30.28.3directhigh40.29.0

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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