Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 07:11 UTC

kdeldycke / meta-package-manager

🎁 snapshot every package on your machine to one file, restore it on a new one

PythonGPL-2.0★ 613 stars⑂ 48 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryPluginDesktop applicationhow this is determined

kdeldycke/meta-package-manager holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100). It was last updated 1 day 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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kevin DeldyckePersonal account

2,169 followers57 public repossince Nov 2009

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	meta-package-manager	7.6.1	6,614	111	31 days ago	alpine-linux anaconda apk apm appimage apt apt-cyg apt-mint asdf atom brew cargo cask cave choco chocolatey chromebrew chromeos clear-linux cli cli-tools composer conda cpan cyclonedx cygwin deb-get dnf dnf5 emerge eopkg exherbo fink flatpak fwupd gem gh-ext github-cli gnome gnome-shell gnome-shell-extension gnu-guix guix homebrew mac-app-store macos macports mageia mas meta-package-manager mise neovim netbsd nix nixpkgs node npm openbsd opkg pacaur package package-manager package-url package-manager-cli packagekit pacman pacstall paludis paru php-composer pip pipx pkcon pkg pkg-tools pkgin pkgsrc plugin pnpm portage ports powershell powershell-gallery psresourceget purl pwsh pwsh-gallery ruby ruby-gem rust sbom scoop sdkman sfsu slackware slapt-get slitaz snap soar solaris sorcery source-mage spdx steamcmd stew sun-tools svr4 swiftbar swiftbar-plugin swupd tazpkg tex-live tlmgr topgrade urpmi uv uvx vim-pack visual-studio-code void-linux volta vscode vscodium winget xbar xbar-plugin xbps yarn yarn-berry yay yum zb zerobrew zinit zsh zypper

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

91Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
27/36	Commit cadence — 39/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,925 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,925
human_commit_share	0.96
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	39

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 95 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 31 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~5.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	95
latest_release_tag	v7.6.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	31
mean_days_between_releases	5.1

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

72Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

65Good

How it's scored

45.2/60	Stars — 613 stars
13.9/25	Forks — 48 forks
5.6/15	Watchers — 11 watchers

Inputs used

forks	48
stars	613
watchers	11
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

64Moderate

How it's scored

50.9/80	Monthly downloads — 6,614 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	meta-package-manager
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	6,614
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 21 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	21
top_contributor_share	0.987

Issue & PR responsiveness

70Good

How it's scored

39.4/42	Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
21.6/30	PR acceptance — 1,355/1,884 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	1,355
open_issues	11
closed_issues	170
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.939
closed_unmerged_prs	529
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

74Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
24/25	Owner reach — 2,169 followers of kdeldycke
24.8/25	Track record — 57 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,169
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	kdeldycke
public_repos	57
account_age_days	6,130

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 31 days ago
20/20	Version history — 111 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	meta-package-manager
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	31

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 18 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://mpm.run
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 20 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	pip, mac-app-store, ruby-gem, apt, flatpak, php-composer, xbar, package-manager, sbom, package-url, cyclonedx, spdx, cli-tools, meta-package-manager, pipx, swiftbar, swiftbar-plugin, winget, xbar-plugin, package-manager-cli
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://mpm.run
docs_site	https://mpm.run
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

59Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 14 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 — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
4/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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	13
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:meta-package-manager@7.6.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 13 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.

71Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

62Moderate

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — claude.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16.7/40	Legible commit history — 30 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.312
agent_instruction_files	claude.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	73,840

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

75Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — meta_package_manager/managers/cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
11/11	Static type checking — meta_package_manager/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_nix	yes
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	meta_package_manager/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	meta_package_manager/managers/cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

80Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (meta_package_manager/py.typed)
53.4/55	Manageable file sizes — 5/177 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	130,050
source_files_sampled	177
oversized_source_files	5

Key facts

613GitHub stars

21contributors

1,925commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

95releases

1bus factor

11open 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 ★ / 48 ⇿

0Stars

48Forks

95Releases

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 5Minor 52Patch 38

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10

5.9aggregate

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 07:10 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 14 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	30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
8	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	backports-strenum	`>=1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	boltons	`>=25`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click-extra	`>=9`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	extra-platforms	`>=13.9`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	packageurl-python	`>=0.11`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli	`>=2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli-w	`>=1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	xmltodict	`>=0.12`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 119

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 111 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	backports-strenum	`1.3.1`	direct
PyPI	boltons	`26.1.0`	direct
PyPI	click-extra	`9.1.0`	direct
PyPI	extra-platforms	`13.9.0`	direct
PyPI	packageurl-python	`0.17.6`	direct
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	direct
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	direct
PyPI	xmltodict	`1.0.4`	direct
PyPI	accessible-pygments	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	arrow	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	beartype	`0.22.9`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	boolean-py	`5.0`	indirect
PyPI	bracex	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	cloup	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	cyclonedx-python-lib	`11.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	deepmerge	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	fqdn	`1.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2025.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hjson	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.19`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isodate	`0.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	isoduration	`20.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	json-with-comments	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	json5	`0.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonpointer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	lark	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	license-expression	`30.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	meta-package-manager	`8.0.0.dev0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.7`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	ply	`3.11`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`7.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	py-serializable	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-fmt	`2.29.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-github-actions-annotate-failures	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-randomly	`5.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	rdflib	`7.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	respx	`0.23.1`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3339-validator	`0.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986-validator	`0.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3987-syntax	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`2026.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	semantic-version	`2.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	spdx-tools	`0.8.5`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.13.5`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-basic-ng	`1.0.0b2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-copybutton	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-datatables	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-design	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-last-updated-by-git	`0.3.8`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-sitemap	`2.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jquery	`4.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-mermaid	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxext-opengraph	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`0.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	types-boltons	`26.1.0.20260724`	indirect
PyPI	types-docutils	`0.23.0.20260827`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260815`	indirect
PyPI	types-xmltodict	`1.0.1.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.3`	indirect
PyPI	uri-template	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	uritools	`6.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcmatch	`11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	webcolors	`25.10.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:meta-package-manager@7.6.1 pulls in 13 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