Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 18:41 UTC

karpierz / pyc_wheel

Compile all py files in a wheel to pyc files.

PythonMIT★ 33 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Nov 2019View on GitHub ↗

karpierz/pyc_wheel holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (63/100) and lowest on Security (36/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

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

Ownership

Adam KarpierzPersonal account
26 followers54 public repossince Apr 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
PyPIpyc_wheel2.5.156,185354 days agopyc-wheelpycwheelwheelpyccompile

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18Commit volume — 7 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year7
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 19 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~54.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tag2.5.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases54.6
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.4/60Stars — 33 stars
9.6/25Forks — 15 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars33
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63.3/80Monthly downloads — 56,185 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespyc_wheel
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads56,185
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.837
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance — 8/9 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs8
open_issues0
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.3/25Owner reach — 26 followers of karpierz
24.7/25Track record — 54 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers26
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkarpierz
public_repos54
account_age_days4,557
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 — 35 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyc_wheel
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://karpierz.github.io/pyc_wheel/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://karpierz.github.io/pyc_wheel/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

36Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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:pyc_wheel@2.5.1 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.3/40Legible commit history — 23 of 55 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.418
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8])
11/11Static type checking — src/pyc_wheel/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 55
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesnoxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/pyc_wheel/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/pyc_wheel/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes13,131
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

33GitHub stars
7contributors
7commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
5Releases

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.

03581013151412020-072022-112025-03
Major 0Minor 2Patch 3

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.0 / 10
2.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 18:41 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 7/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItyping-extensions>=4.16.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools>=81.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpkg-about>=2.5.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpkg-about—direct
PyPIsetuptools—direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcheck-manifest—indirect
PyPIcovdefaults—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIdeepdiff—indirect
PyPIdiff-cover—indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPIflake8-builtins—indirect
PyPIflake8-deprecated—indirect
PyPIflake8-docstrings—indirect
PyPIflake8-in-file-ignores—indirect
PyPIflake8-pyproject—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPImypy-extensions—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPInbsphinx—indirect
PyPIpackaging—indirect
PyPIpep8-naming—indirect
PyPIpip—indirect
PyPIpygments-ansi-color—indirect
PyPIrestructuredtext-lint—indirect
PyPIrich—indirect
PyPIroman-numerals—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints—indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton—indirect
PyPIsphinx-lint—indirect
PyPIsphinx-prompt—indirect
PyPIsphinx-tabs—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-spelling—indirect
PyPItwine—indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pyc_wheel@2.5.1 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.

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.