Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-28 08:49 UTC

lab-emi / OpenDPD

OpenDPD is an end-to-end learning framework built in PyTorch for power amplifier (PA) modeling and digital pre-distortion (DPD). You are cordially invited to contribute to this project by providing your own backbone neural networks, pretrained models or measured PA datasets.

Python · TypeScriptApache-2.0★ 177 stars⑂ 42 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceCommand-line toolLibraryWeb interfaceDesktop applicationhow this is determined

lab-emi/OpenDPD holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Security (57/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

23 followers18 public repossince Sep 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIopendpd2.2.172,087200 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9/36Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 188 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year188
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 20 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv2.2.18
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.4
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.4/60Stars — 177 stars
13.4/25Forks — 42 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks42
stars177
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
44.3/80Monthly downloads — 2,087 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesopendpd
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,087
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 79% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.788
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance — 44/45 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues0
closed_issues13
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d32
prs_decided_30d32
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.9/25Owner reach — 23 followers of lab-emi
17.4/25Track record — 18 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers23
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginlab-emi
public_repos18
account_age_days1,470

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 — 20 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopendpd
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 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 site — https://www.tudemi.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsartificial-intelligence, deep-learning, digital-signal-processing, radio-frequency, wireless-communication
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.tudemi.com
docs_sitehttps://www.tudemi.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 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 — 23 out of 23 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 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
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
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.4/40Legible commit history — 47 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.495
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — frontend/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsfrontend/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (frontend/tsconfig.json)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 4/563 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes318,774
source_files_sampled563
oversized_source_files4
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — docs/contracts/openapi.json
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesdocs/contracts/openapi.json
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

177GitHub stars
6contributors
188commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
20releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:opendpd@2.2.17; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 42 ⇿
0Stars
42Forks
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.

010203040504122024-012025-052026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-28 08:49 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests23 out of 23 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 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 27
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@emotion/react^11.14.0frontend/package.json
npm@emotion/styled^11.14.1frontend/package.json
npm@mui/icons-material^9.4.0frontend/package.json
npm@mui/material^9.4.0frontend/package.json
npm@tanstack/react-query^5.102.8frontend/package.json
npmkatex^0.18.7frontend/package.json
npmplotly.js-basic-dist-min4.0.0frontend/package.json
npmreact^19.2.8frontend/package.json
npmreact-dom^19.2.8frontend/package.json
npmreact-router^8.3.1frontend/package.json
PyPItorch>=2.13.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=1.10.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=1.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=3.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow>=12.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm>=4.66.3pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=10.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.5,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIfastapi>=0.141.1pyproject.toml
PyPIstarlette>=1.3.1pyproject.toml
PyPIh11>=0.16.0pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.27pyproject.toml
PyPIpsutil>=5.9pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-multipart>=0.0.31pyproject.toml
PyPIpywebview>=6.2,<7pyproject.toml
PyPIpywebview>=6.2,<7pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.