Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 08:19 UTC

jonnymaserati / welleng

A collection of Wells/Drilling Engineering tools, focused on well trajectory planning for the time being.

PythonApache-2.0★ 148 stars⑂ 47 forkssince Oct 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#survey#survey-listings#wbp#survey-stations#wellbore#drilling#drilling-engineering#well-design#well-engineering#engineering#directional-drilling#error-model#uncertainty

jonnymaserati/welleng holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

JonnyPersonal account
53 followers12 public repossince Jul 2018

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
PyPIwelleng0.17.14,950870 days agoautomationcovariancedigitalizationdirectional-drillingdrilldrillingdrilling-engineeringerroriscwsaminimum-curvaturemwdowsgseparationsurveytrajectoryvolvewellwell-engineeringwellborewellpathwellswitsml

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 283 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year283
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 85 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_count85
latest_release_tagv0.18.0
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

54Moderate
How it's scored
35.2/60Stars — 148 stars
13.9/25Forks — 47 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks47
stars148
watchers9
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 (Apache-2.0)
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)

62Moderate
How it's scored
49.3/80Monthly downloads — 4,950 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageswelleng
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,950
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.931

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
41.2/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance — 146/159 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs146
open_issues1
closed_issues55
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.982
closed_unmerged_prs13
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

53Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.5/25Owner reach — 53 followers of jonnymaserati
20.1/25Track record — 12 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers53
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjonnymaserati
public_repos12
account_age_days2,930
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 — 87 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswelleng
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssurvey, survey-listings, wbp, survey-stations, wellbore, drilling, drilling-engineering, well-design, well-engineering, engineering, directional-drilling, error-model, uncertainty
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/12 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 15 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
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

74Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — welleng/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configswelleng/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

81Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (welleng/py.typed)
53.6/55Manageable file sizes — 3/115 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes141,144
source_files_sampled115
oversized_source_files3

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

148GitHub stars
5contributors
283commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
85releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 08:19 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 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 0/12 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 15 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy—pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy—pyproject.toml
PyPIopenpyxl—pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas—pyproject.toml
PyPIpint—pyproject.toml
PyPIpyproj—pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML—pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 55

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy2.2.6direct
PyPInumpy2.4.3direct
PyPIopenpyxl3.1.5direct
PyPIpandas2.3.3direct
PyPIpandas3.0.1direct
PyPIpint0.24.4direct
PyPIpint0.25.3direct
PyPIpyproj3.7.1direct
PyPIpyproj3.7.2direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIscipy1.15.3direct
PyPIscipy1.17.1direct
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1direct
PyPI-—indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.2indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.3indirect
PyPIcoolprop8.0.0indirect
PyPIcycler0.12.1indirect
PyPIcython3.2.4indirect
PyPIet-xmlfile2.0.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIflexcache0.3indirect
PyPIflexparser0.4indirect
PyPIfonttools4.62.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.5.0indirect
PyPImagnetic-field-calculator1.0.2indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.10.8indirect
PyPImpmath1.3.0indirect
PyPInetworkx3.4.2indirect
PyPInetworkx3.6.1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpillow12.2.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.4indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-fcl0.7.0.10indirect
PyPIpython-flint0.9.0indirect
PyPIpytz2026.1.post1indirect
PyPIrtree1.4.1indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsympy1.14.0indirect
PyPItabulate0.10.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItrimesh4.11.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItzdata2025.3indirect
PyPIutm0.8.1indirect
PyPIvedo2026.6.1indirect
PyPIvtk9.6.0indirect
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 jonnymaserati/welleng. Read them side by side →

94e2nIEE/pandapowerConvenient Power System Modelling and Analysis based on PYPOWER and pandasExceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100PrefectHQ/prefectPrefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python.Exceptional100psf/blackThe uncompromising Python code formatterExceptional99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional99home-assistant/core:house_with_garden: Open source home automation that puts local control and privacy first.Exceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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