Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 23:27 UTC

kdeldycke / meta-package-manager

🎁 wraps all package managers with a unifying CLI

PythonGPL-2.0★ 609 stars⑂ 48 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

kdeldycke/meta-package-manager holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on Security (66/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kevin DeldyckePersonal account
2,078 followers58 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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
27/36Commit cadence39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,115 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,115
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year39
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases90 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~7.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count90
latest_release_tagv7.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases7.5

Community & Adoption

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

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.2/60Stars609 stars
13.9/25Forks48 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks48
stars609
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth22 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.873
How it's scored
39.1/42Issue resolution93% of issues closed
21.3/30PR acceptance1,262/1,776 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,262
open_issues12
closed_issues164
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.932
closed_unmerged_prs514
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
23.9/25Owner reach2,078 followers of kdeldycke
24.9/25Track record58 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,078
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginkdeldycke
public_repos58
account_age_days6,076
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 3 days ago
20/20Version history106 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmeta-package-manager
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows13 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 3 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://kdeldycke.github.io/meta-package-manager
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspip, 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_wikino
homepagehttps://kdeldycke.github.io/meta-package-manager
docs_sitehttps://kdeldycke.github.io/meta-package-manager
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages124
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 124 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

69Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsclaude.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesclaude.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes45,372
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingmeta_package_manager/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentNix, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsmeta_package_manager/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.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (meta_package_manager/py.typed)
54/55Manageable file sizes2/115 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes100,524
source_files_sampled115
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

609GitHub stars
22contributors
1,115commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
90releases
1bus factor
12open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index pypi:meta-package-manager@7.3.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 23:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests3 out of 3 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIbackports-strenum>=1pyproject.toml
PyPIboltons>=25pyproject.toml
PyPIclick-extra>=8.4pyproject.toml
PyPIextra-platforms>=13.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpackageurl-python>=0.11pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>=2pyproject.toml
PyPItomli-w>=1pyproject.toml
PyPIxmltodict>=0.12pyproject.toml
All dependencies 124

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 116 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbackports-strenum1.3.1direct
PyPIboltons26.0.0direct
PyPIclick-extra8.4.0direct
PyPIextra-platforms13.1.0direct
PyPIpackageurl-python0.17.6direct
PyPItomli2.4.1direct
PyPItomli-w1.2.0direct
PyPIxmltodict1.0.4direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIarrow1.4.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeartype0.22.9indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIboolean-py5.0indirect
PyPIbracex3.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcloup3.1.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.1indirect
PyPIcyclonedx-python-lib11.11.0indirect
PyPIdeepmerge2.1.0indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIfqdn1.5.1indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhjson3.1.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisodate0.7.2indirect
PyPIisoduration20.11.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjson-with-comments1.2.10indirect
PyPIjson50.15.0indirect
PyPIjsonpointer3.1.1indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIlark1.3.1indirect
PyPIlicense-expression30.4.4indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImeta-package-manager7.3.1.dev0indirect
PyPImyst-parser4.0.1indirect
PyPImyst-parser5.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIply3.11indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIpy-serializable2.1.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpyproject-fmt2.25.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-github-actions-annotate-failures0.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly4.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrdflib7.6.0indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrespx0.23.1indirect
PyPIrfc3339-validator0.1.4indirect
PyPIrfc3986-validator0.1.1indirect
PyPIrfc3987-syntax1.1.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIsemantic-version2.10.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPIspdx-tools0.8.5indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints3.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints3.12.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints3.6.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-datatables1.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-design0.6.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-design0.7.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-mermaid2.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxext-opengraph0.13.0indirect
PyPItabulate0.10.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.0indirect
PyPItypes-boltons25.0.0.20260612indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-xmltodict1.0.1.20260518indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIuri-template1.3.0indirect
PyPIuritools6.1.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwcmatch11.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
PyPIwebcolors25.10.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 124 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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