Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 03:27 UTC

josw123 / dart-fss

한국 금융감독원에서 운영하는 다트(Dart) 시스템 크롤링을 위한 라이브러리

PythonMIT★ 372 stars⑂ 119 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗

josw123/dart-fss holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (72/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (36/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sungwoo JoPersonal account
56 followers9 public repossince Dec 2014

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
PyPIdart-fss0.4.1720,914557 days agofssdart-fssscrappingfinancial-statement

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 7 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume22 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained7 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases54 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 7 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~94.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count54
latest_release_tagv0.4.17
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release7
mean_days_between_releases94.5
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.7/60Stars372 stars
17.3/25Forks119 forks
6.2/15Watchers14 watchers
Inputs used
forks119
stars372
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
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_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57.6/80Monthly downloads20,914 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdart-fss
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads20,914
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 96% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth8 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.965
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.8/30PR acceptance51/55 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs51
open_issues0
closed_issues145
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs4
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.6/25Owner reach56 followers of josw123
19.3/25Track record9 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers56
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginjosw123
public_repos9
account_age_days4,227
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 7 days ago
20/20Version history55 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdart-fss
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish7

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://github.com/josw123/dart-fss
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython3, finance, scraping-website, opendart
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/josw123/dart-fss
docs_sitehttps://github.com/josw123/dart-fss
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained7 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes1/153 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes83,607
source_files_sampled153
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

372GitHub stars
8contributors
22commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
54releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 03:27 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained7 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIxmltodictpyproject.toml
PyPIrequestspyproject.toml
PyPIarelle-releasepyproject.toml
PyPInumpypyproject.toml
PyPIpandaspyproject.toml
PyPItqdmpyproject.toml
PyPIyaspinpyproject.toml
PyPIfake-useragent>=1.5pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4pyproject.toml
PyPIappdirspyproject.toml
PyPIlxmlpyproject.toml
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 23 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIappdirsdirect
PyPIarelle-releasedirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup4direct
PyPIfake-useragentdirect
PyPIlxmldirect
PyPInumpydirect
PyPIpandasdirect
PyPIrequestsdirect
PyPItqdmdirect
PyPIxmltodictdirect
PyPIyaspindirect
PyPIattrsindirect
PyPIbackcallindirect
PyPIcertifiindirect
PyPIchardetindirect
PyPIdecoratorindirect
PyPIhtml5libindirect
PyPIidnaindirect
PyPIipython-genutilsindirect
PyPIisodateindirect
PyPInumpydocindirect
PyPIopenpyxlindirect
PyPIpickleshareindirect
PyPIpyindirect
PyPIpython-dateutilindirect
PyPIpytzindirect
PyPIsixindirect
PyPIsoupsieveindirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehintsindirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-themeindirect
PyPItraitletsindirect
PyPIurllib3indirect
PyPIwcwidthindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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