Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 08:03 UTC

john-kurkowski / tldextract

Accurately separates a URL’s subdomain, domain, and public suffix, using the Public Suffix List (PSL).

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 2,019 stars⑂ 219 forkssince Feb 2011View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#python #tldextract #country-codes #suffix #tld #publicsuffix #publicsuffixlist

john-kurkowski/tldextract holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (72/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (64/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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.

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)

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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

John KurkowskiPersonal account

97 followers31 public repossince Jun 2010

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	tldextract	5.3.2	-	66	34 days ago	tld domain subdomain url parse extract urlparse urlsplit public suffix list publicsuffix publicsuffixlist

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

56Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 10 days ago
4.2/36	Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18	Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	28
human_commit_share	0.99
days_since_last_push	10
active_weeks_last_year	6

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 34 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~114.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	12
latest_release_tag	5.3.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	34
mean_days_between_releases	114.7

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?

67Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

82Excellent

How it's scored

53.6/60	Stars — 2,019 stars
19.5/25	Forks — 219 forks
9/15	Watchers — 43 watchers

Inputs used

forks	219
stars	2,019
watchers	43
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	2
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 76% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 46 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 30 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	46
top_contributor_share	0.759

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good

How it's scored

38.7/42	Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
22.3/30	PR acceptance — 112/151 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	112
open_issues	17
closed_issues	202
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.922
closed_unmerged_prs	39
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.3/25	Owner reach — 97 followers of john-kurkowski
23/25	Track record — 31 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	97
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	john-kurkowski
public_repos	31
account_age_days	5,940

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 34 days ago
20/20	Version history — 66 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	tldextract
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	34

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	python, tldextract, country-codes, suffix, tld, publicsuffix, publicsuffixlist
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

72Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

65Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 8 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 5/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 30 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	6.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	7
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:tldextract@5.3.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 7 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.

70Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

71Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.9/40	Legible commit history — 48 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.485
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	957

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
11/11	Static type checking — tldextract/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	tldextract/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.01

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (tldextract/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/18 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	28,334
source_files_sampled	18
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

2,019GitHub stars

46contributors

28commits, last 12 months

10days since last push

12releases

1bus factor

17open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'tldextract' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 219 ⇿

0Stars

219Forks

12Releases

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.

Major 2Minor 4Patch 6

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10

6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 08:03 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
8	CI-Tests	8 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 5/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 30 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	15 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	idna	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests-file	`>=1.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	filelock	`>=3.0.8`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 67

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.2`	direct
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	requests-file	`3.0.1`	direct
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`7.1.7`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.23`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-api	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`45.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	responses	`0.26.2`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	sybil	`10.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sybil	`9.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	syrupy	`5.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`4.58.0`	indirect
PyPI	tox-uv	`1.36.0`	indirect
PyPI	tox-uv-bare	`1.36.0`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-filelock	`3.2.7`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.33.0.20260712`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	uv	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:tldextract@5.3.2 pulls in 7 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records