Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 18:02 UTC

junzis / openap

Open aircraft performance model and Python toolkit

PythonLGPL-3.0★ 154 stars⑂ 41 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#aircraft#drag#fuel#thrust#bada

junzis/openap holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Junzi SunPersonal account
365 followers49 public repossince Nov 2014Delft University of Technology

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 publish
PyPIopenap2.6.1-144 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18Commit volume — 20 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year20
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~98.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv2.6.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases98.3
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

56Moderate
How it's scored
35.4/60Stars — 154 stars
13.4/25Forks — 41 forks
6.7/15Watchers — 17 watchers
Inputs used
forks41
stars154
watchers17
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 (LGPL-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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

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)

35Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.88

Issue & PR responsiveness

69Good
How it's scored
30.5/42Issue resolution — 73% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance — 36/38 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs36
open_issues3
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.727
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

66Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.4/25Owner reach — 365 followers of junzis
24.4/25Track record — 49 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers365
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjunzis
public_repos49
account_age_days4,333
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 4 days ago
20/20Version history — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopenap
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://openap.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaircraft, drag, fuel, thrust, bada
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://openap.dev
docs_sitehttps://openap.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

33At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 — 29 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.3
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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages6
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:openap@2.6.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

18Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.6/40Legible commit history — 33 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.33
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — 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_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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 — 0/59 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes23,196
source_files_sampled59
oversized_source_files0

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, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

154GitHub stars
13contributors
20commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 41 ⇿
0Stars
41Forks
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.

010203040504122021-042023-122026-08
Major 0Minor 2Patch 0

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 18:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 3 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 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities29 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.14pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml>=6.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 56 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy2.4.1direct
PyPIpandas2.3.3direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIscipy1.17.0direct
PyPIappnope0.1.4indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.1indirect
PyPIcasadi3.7.2indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcomm0.2.3indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.3indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.1indirect
PyPIcycler0.12.1indirect
PyPIdebugpy1.8.19indirect
PyPIdecorator5.2.1indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.1indirect
PyPIfonttools4.61.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIipykernel7.1.0indirect
PyPIipython9.9.0indirect
PyPIipython-pygments-lexers1.1.1indirect
PyPIjax0.8.2indirect
PyPIjaxlib0.8.2indirect
PyPIjedi0.19.2indirect
PyPIjupyter-client8.8.0indirect
PyPIjupyter-core5.9.1indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.4.9indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.10.8indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.2.1indirect
PyPIml-dtypes0.5.4indirect
PyPInest-asyncio1.6.0indirect
PyPIopenap2.6.0indirect
PyPIopt-einsum3.4.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIparso0.8.5indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIpillow12.1.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.52indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.1indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.3indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIpyzmq27.1.0indirect
PyPIruff0.14.11indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItornado6.5.4indirect
PyPItraitlets5.14.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItzdata2025.3indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.2.14indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:openap@2.6.1 pulls in 6 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with junzis/openap. Read them side by side →

86OpenNMT/CTranslate2Fast inference engine for Transformer modelsExcellent83junzis/pyModeSPython decoder for Mode S and ADS-B signalsExcellent81xoolive/jet1090Decode and demodulate Mode S and ADS-B in Rust/PythonExcellent95FuelLabs/sway🌴 Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient smart contracts.Exceptional94FuelLabs/fuel-coreRust full node implementation of the Fuel v2 protocol.Exceptional94react-dropzone/react-dropzoneSimple HTML5 drag-drop zone with React.js.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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