# jmcollin78/vtherm_api — health index 47/100 (Weak)

> Inspection of the public repository jmcollin78/vtherm_api by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 47 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/jmcollin78/vtherm_api
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/jmcollin78/vtherm_api
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/jmcollin78/vtherm_api/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/j/jmcollin78/vtherm_api.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-13
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 70/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 37/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 55/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 66/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 1/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 52/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | The API of the Versatile Thermostat integration for Home Assistant |
| Classification | library |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 3 |
| Created | 2026-04-12 |
| Last push | 2026-10-13 |
| Latest release | 0.5.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 36 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | vtherm_api | 0.6.1 | 34,502 |

## Vitality — 70/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 4.2 / 36 | 6/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 14.1 / 18 | 36 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 2 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 20 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | a release every ~153 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 37/100 (Weak)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 2/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | partial | 2.5 / 25 | 3 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 76/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 60.5 / 80 | 34,502 downloads/month across pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 55/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 60% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 4.1 / 13.5 | 3 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 51/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | not met | 0 / 42 | 0% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 5/5 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 60/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 16.1 / 25 | 170 followers of jmcollin78 |
| Track record | partial | 22.1 / 25 | 23 public repos, account ~14 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 0 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 10 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 66/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.black]) |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://github.com/jmcollin78/vtherm_api |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 1/100 (Critical)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 52/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 12/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 11.5 / 40 | 8 of 37 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.black]) |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | pyrightconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 2 of the last 37 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 82/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/17 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
- deps.dev does not index pypi:vtherm_api@0.6.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt