Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-01 15:44 UTC

jnstockley / email-to-calendar

Takes emails from an IMAP server, parses the body, and creates event(s) in a CalDAV calendar

PythonGPL-3.0★ 1 star⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#ical#imap-client#python

jnstockley/email-to-calendar holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (100/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (34/100). It was last updated today. 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

Jack StockleyPersonal account
3 followers35 public repossince Dec 2017University of Iowa

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 publishTags
PyPIemail-to-calendar1.0.885,7982480 days agostartertemplatepython

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

100Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 956 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year956
human_commit_share0.68
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 89 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count89
latest_release_tagv1.0.88
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.8
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars1
watchers0
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 (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

63Moderate
How it's scored
50.2/80Monthly downloads — 5,798 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesemail-to-calendar
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,798
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?

44Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance — 377/399 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs377
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs22
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.

Ownership & stewardship

47Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
4.3/25Owner reach — 3 followers of jnstockley
23.3/25Track record — 35 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers3
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjnstockley
public_repos35
account_age_days3,160
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 248 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesemail-to-calendar
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

66Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsical, imap-client, python
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages74
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 74 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

39Weak · 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 — 60 of 68 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.882
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

32At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
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 — 0/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes15,293
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
956commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
89releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:email-to-calendar@1.0.88; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-01 15:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
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 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIapprise==1.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIcaldav==3.2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIimapclient==3.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdownify==1.2.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-ai-slim==2.22.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-settings==2.14.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic==2.13.4pyproject.toml
PyPIsqlmodel==0.0.39pyproject.toml
PyPItzlocal==5.4.4pyproject.toml
PyPIvobject==0.9.9pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dotenv==1.2.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 74

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIapprise1.12.0direct
PyPIcaldav3.2.1direct
PyPIimapclient3.1.0direct
PyPImarkdownify1.2.3direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.4direct
PyPIpydantic-ai-slim2.22.0direct
PyPIpydantic-settings2.14.2direct
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2direct
PyPIsqlmodel0.0.39direct
PyPItzlocal5.4.4direct
PyPIvobject0.9.9direct
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.2indirect
PyPIdistro1.9.0indirect
PyPIdnspython2.8.0indirect
PyPIemail-to-calendar0.1.0indirect
PyPIemail-validator2.3.0indirect
PyPIgenai-prices0.1.1indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.5.4indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.9.1indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhttpx22.9.1indirect
PyPIicalendar7.2.2indirect
PyPIicalendar-searcher1.0.6indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjh25.0.13indirect
PyPIjiter0.16.0indirect
PyPIlogfire-api4.39.0indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.1indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPIniquests3.21.0indirect
PyPIoauthlib3.3.1indirect
PyPIopenai2.52.0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.44.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-graph2.22.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytz2026.3.post1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIqh31.9.4indirect
PyPIrecurring-ical-events3.8.2indirect
PyPIregex2026.7.19indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequests-oauthlib2.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.1indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9.1indirect
PyPIsqlalchemy2.0.51indirect
PyPItiktoken0.13.0indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.0indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIurllib3-future2.24.900indirect
PyPIwassima2.1.3indirect
PyPIx-wr-timezone2.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 74 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with jnstockley/email-to-calendar. Read them side by side →

100reflex-dev/reflex🕸️ Web apps in pure Python 🐍Exceptional100astropy/astropyAstronomy and astrophysics core libraryExceptional100ray-project/rayRay is an AI compute engine. Ray consists of a core distributed runtime and a set of AI Libraries for accelerating ML workloads.Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100streamlit/streamlitStreamlit — A faster way to build and share data apps.Exceptional100scikit-learn/scikit-learnscikit-learn: machine learning in PythonExceptional

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.