Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-09 23:54 UTC

kylebarron / pydelatin

Python bindings to `hmm` for fast terrain mesh generation

C · C++MIT★ 86 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Jul 2020View on GitHub ↗

kylebarron/pydelatin holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kyle BarronPersonal account
1,316 followers433 public repossince Oct 2015@developmentseed

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
PyPIpydelatin0.4.05,805140 days agoterrainmeshdelatinelevationgis3d

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~467.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv0.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases467.5
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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.3/60Stars — 86 stars
9/25Forks — 13 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks13
stars86
watchers4
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
50.2/80Monthly downloads — 5,805 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespydelatin
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,805
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.957
How it's scored
38/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 41/45 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs41
open_issues2
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d12
prs_decided_7d14
prs_merged_30d12
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.905
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22.4/25Owner reach — 1,316 followers of kylebarron
25/25Track record — 433 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,316
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkylebarron
public_repos433
account_age_days4,011
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespydelatin
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://kylebarron.dev/quantized-mesh-encoder
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmesh, terrain, heightmap, elevation, numpy, mesh-generation
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://kylebarron.dev/quantized-mesh-encoder
docs_sitehttps://kylebarron.dev/quantized-mesh-encoder
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
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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 — 19 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): Branch-Protection, 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
advisories38
affected_packages2
assessed_packages67
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, moderate 1
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 67 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.6/40Legible commit history — 35 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.368
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — pydelatin/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock, yarn.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspydelatin/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.1
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C (statically typed)
50.2/55Manageable file sizes — 2/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes263,527
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

86GitHub stars
4contributors
15commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
2open 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:pydelatin@0.4.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 13 ⇿
0Stars
13Forks
1Releases

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.

03581013151312020-102023-102026-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 6 days.

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 · 2026-10-09 23:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
5CI-Tests15 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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
0Vulnerabilities19 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 67

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy2.0.2direct
PyPInumpy2.2.6direct
PyPInumpy2.4.6direct
PyPInumpy2.5.3direct
npmesm3.2.25indirect
npmpngjs5.0.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIblack26.10.0indirect
PyPIcairocffi1.7.1indirect
PyPIcairosvg2.9.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.2indirect
PyPIclick8.2.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcssselect20.10.1indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.3.0indirect
PyPIidna3.20indirect
PyPIimageio2.37.2indirect
PyPIimageio2.38.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkdown3.11indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.4indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImike2.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.6indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.9indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpillow11.3.0indirect
PyPIpillow12.3.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.12.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydelatin0.3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions12.1indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.3indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItinycss21.5.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIverspec0.1.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwebencodings0.6.1indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 67 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pillow11.3.0indirectcritical3612.3.0
pytest8.4.2indirectmoderate29.0.3

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.