Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-26 02:25 UTC

kurusugawa-computer / annofab-cli

AnnofabのCLI(Command Line Interface)ツールです。

PythonMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

kurusugawa-computer/annofab-cli holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

14 followers38 public repossince Nov 2017

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIannofabcli1.132.09,4894470 days agoannofabcli

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 224 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year224
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year35

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.132.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases5
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars8
watchers5
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53/80Monthly downloads — 9,489 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesannofabcli
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads9,489
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.963
How it's scored
38.6/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
21.6/30PR acceptance — 999/1,386 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs999
open_issues30
closed_issues345
prs_merged_7d15
prs_decided_7d15
prs_merged_30d24
prs_decided_30d24
issue_closed_ratio0.92
closed_unmerged_prs387
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.5/25Owner reach — 14 followers of kurusugawa-computer
23.6/25Track record — 38 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers14
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginkurusugawa-computer
public_repos38
account_age_days3,234

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 447 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesannofabcli
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://annofab-cli.readthedocs.io/ja/latest/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsannofab, cli, python, python3
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://annofab-cli.readthedocs.io/ja/latest/
docs_sitehttps://annofab-cli.readthedocs.io/ja/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages103
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 103 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.

89Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 92 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.948
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes507
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — annofabcli/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 20 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsannofabcli/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.2
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (annofabcli/py.typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 3/486 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes84,181
source_files_sampled486
oversized_source_files3
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
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

8GitHub stars
11contributors
224commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
30open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:annofabcli@1.132.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-26 02:25 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests29 out of 29 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 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIrequests—pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml—pyproject.toml
PyPIdictdiffer—pyproject.toml
PyPImore-itertools—pyproject.toml
PyPIpyquery—pyproject.toml
PyPIisodate—pyproject.toml
PyPIannofabapi>=1.7.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-datauri—pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy—pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=2pyproject.toml
PyPIbokeh>=3.8pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow—pyproject.toml
PyPIshapely—pyproject.toml
PyPIulid-py>=1.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIannofabapi-3dpc-extensions—pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.12pyproject.toml
PyPIshtab>=1.8pyproject.toml
All dependencies 103

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 84 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIannofabapi1.7.2direct
PyPIannofabapi-3dpc-extensions0.3.0direct
PyPIbokeh3.10.0direct
PyPIbokeh3.9.2direct
PyPIdictdiffer0.10.0direct
PyPIisodate0.7.2direct
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0direct
PyPInumpy2.4.6direct
PyPInumpy2.5.3direct
PyPIpandas3.0.6direct
PyPIpillow12.3.0direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.5direct
PyPIpyquery2.1.0direct
PyPIpython-datauri3.0.2direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIshapely2.1.2direct
PyPIshtab1.12.1direct
PyPIulid-py1.1.0direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.11.2indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.2indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackoff2.2.1indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIcached-property2.0.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.3indirect
PyPIcssselect1.5.0indirect
PyPIdataclasses-json0.6.7indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.7indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.20indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIipython9.17.1indirect
PyPIipython-pygments-lexers1.1.1indirect
PyPIjedi0.20.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.15.0indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.3indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImarshmallow3.26.2indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.2.2indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInarwhals2.26.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIparso0.8.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.11indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.2indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.53indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme0.21.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.1indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.8indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9.2indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-argparse0.6.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-last-updated-by-git0.3.8indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPItornado6.5.10indirect
PyPItraitlets5.16.1indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20260807indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260906indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.33.0.20260906indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspect0.9.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.4indirect
PyPItzdata2026.4indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.9.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.4indirect
PyPIxyzservices2026.9.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 103 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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