Public recordModerate
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 21:59 UTC
leighshepperson / parity
leighshepperson/parity holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (72/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
60
overall / 100Software 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.
60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Leigh SheppersonPersonal account
7 followers26 public repossince Oct 2015
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 | parity-check | 0.21.0 | - | 20 | 0 days ago | compatibilitymigrationproperty-based-testingregressiontesting |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
71
Development activity
52Moderate
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 2.1/36 | Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits |
| 14/18 | Commit volume — 35 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 35 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 3 |
Release discipline
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 13 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 15 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~0.9 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 13 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.16.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 15 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 0.9 |
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?
36
Popularity & adoption
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/60 | Stars — 0 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 0 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 0 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 0 |
| stars | 0 |
| watchers | 0 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
77Good
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 6.3/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | 4 |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | github.com, shields.io |
| has_pull_request_template | yes |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
51
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
10Critical
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 0/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| 1.4/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 1 contributors |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 1 |
| top_contributor_share | 1 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
64Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/42 | Issue resolution — no issues or no data |
| 23.9/30 | PR acceptance — 35/44 decided PRs merged |
| 13/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — 35/35 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 35 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 0 |
| prs_merged_7d | 1 |
| prs_decided_7d | 1 |
| prs_merged_30d | 35 |
| prs_decided_30d | 35 |
| issue_closed_ratio | — |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 9 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 1 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 35 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 35 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
Ownership & stewardship
49Weak
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 6.5/25 | Owner reach — 7 followers of leighshepperson |
| 22.4/25 | Track record — 26 public repos, account ~10 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 7 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | leighshepperson |
| public_repos | 26 |
| account_age_days | 3,976 |
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 0 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 20 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | parity-check |
| ecosystems | pypi |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 0 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
72
Engineering practices
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 6 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]) |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
55Moderate
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 0/10 | Repository description |
| 0/10 | Topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | — |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | — |
| docs_site | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | no |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
48
Security posture
44Weak
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 3/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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 |
| 0/2.5 | Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — 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 |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 0.5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| 5/5 | SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 1.5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 7.5/7.5 | Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 18 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 4.4 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
Dependency advisories
66Good
How it's scored
| 15.4/35 | Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: pyarrow 16.0.0 (high 7.0) |
| 0/25 | Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| 34/40 | No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 647 days ago |
Inputs used
| source | osv |
| advisories | 34 |
| affected_packages | 6 |
| assessed_packages | 80 |
| unassessed_packages | 24 |
| affected_by_severity | high 4, moderate 2 |
| direct_affected_packages | 1 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 80 resolved dependencies against OSV. 24 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.
63
Agent context & guidance
40Weak
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 36 of 36 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 1 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]) |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — src/parity/py.typed |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 36 |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 1/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | — |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | src/parity/py.typed |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
How it's scored
| 27/45 | Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/parity/py.typed) |
| 52.1/55 | Manageable file sizes — 7/135 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | 111,590 |
| source_files_sampled | 135 |
| oversized_source_files | 7 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| 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
0GitHub stars
1contributors
35commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- pypi download statistics for 'parity-check' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
- deps.dev does not index pypi:parity-check@0.21.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 4 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 30 out of 30 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 |
| 0 | Contributors | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Dangerous-Workflow | dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 10 | Dependency-Update-Tool | update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 0 | Maintained | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 1 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| 10 | SAST | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 3 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 10 | Token-Permissions | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 18 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 12
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | hypothesis | >=6.130 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | numpy | >=1.26 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | packaging | >=26.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | psutil | >=5.9.8 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | pyarrow | >=16 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | pydantic | >=2.7 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | rich | >=13.7 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | tox | >=4.44 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | tox-uv | >=1.29 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | typer | >=0.16.1 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | tzdata | >=2024.1 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | uv | >=0.9.1 | pyproject.toml |
All dependencies 104
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 33 direct and 71 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | hypothesis | — | direct |
| PyPI | hypothesis | 6.130.0 | direct |
| PyPI | hypothesis | 6.165.5 | direct |
| PyPI | numpy | — | direct |
| PyPI | numpy | 1.26.0 | direct |
| PyPI | numpy | 2.2.5 | direct |
| PyPI | numpy | 2.3.5 | direct |
| PyPI | numpy | 2.5.2 | direct |
| PyPI | packaging | — | direct |
| PyPI | packaging | 26.0 | direct |
| PyPI | packaging | 26.3 | direct |
| PyPI | psutil | — | direct |
| PyPI | psutil | 5.9.8 | direct |
| PyPI | psutil | 7.2.2 | direct |
| PyPI | pyarrow | — | direct |
| PyPI | pyarrow | 16.0.0 | direct |
| PyPI | pyarrow | 23.0.1 | direct |
| PyPI | pyarrow | 25.0.1 | direct |
| PyPI | pydantic | — | direct |
| PyPI | pydantic | 1.10.22 | direct |
| PyPI | pydantic | 2.13.4 | direct |
| PyPI | pydantic | 2.7.0 | direct |
| PyPI | rich | — | direct |
| PyPI | rich | 13.7.0 | direct |
| PyPI | rich | 15.0.0 | direct |
| PyPI | tox | — | direct |
| PyPI | tox-uv | — | direct |
| PyPI | typer | — | direct |
| PyPI | typer | 0.16.1 | direct |
| PyPI | typer | 0.27.1 | direct |
| PyPI | tzdata | — | direct |
| PyPI | tzdata | 2026.3 | direct |
| PyPI | uv | — | direct |
| PyPI | annotated-doc | 0.0.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | annotated-types | 0.8.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | attrs | 26.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | build | — | indirect |
| PyPI | certifi | 2026.7.22 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 2.0.12 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 3.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | click | 8.2.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | colorama | 0.4.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | contourpy | 1.3.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | cycler | 0.12.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | fonttools | 4.63.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | hatchling | — | indirect |
| PyPI | idna | 3.18 | indirect |
| PyPI | jinja2 | 3.1.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | jinja2 | 3.1.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | joblib | 1.5.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | kiwisolver | 1.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | markdown-it-py | 4.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | markupsafe | 3.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | matplotlib | 3.11.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | matplotlib | 3.6.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | mdurl | 0.1.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | mypy | — | indirect |
| PyPI | narwhals | 2.15.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | narwhals | 2.24.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pandas | — | indirect |
| PyPI | pandas | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pandas | 2.2.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | pandas | 2.3.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | pandas | 3.0.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | pandas-stubs | — | indirect |
| PyPI | pillow | 12.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pip | 26.2.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars | — | indirect |
| PyPI | polars | 0.20.31 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars | 1.27.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars | 1.31.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars | 1.41.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars | 1.43.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars | 1.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars-runtime-32 | 1.41.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | polars-runtime-32 | 1.43.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic-core | 2.18.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic-core | 2.46.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydot | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydot | 4.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pygments | 2.20.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyindicators | — | indirect |
| PyPI | pyparsing | 3.3.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | — | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-cov | — | indirect |
| PyPI | python-dateutil | 2.9.0.post0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytz | 2026.3.post1 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests | 2.27.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests | 2.34.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | ruff | — | indirect |
| PyPI | scikit-learn | 1.4.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | scikit-learn | 1.9.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | scipy | 1.10.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | scipy | 1.18.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | shellingham | 1.5.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | six | 1.17.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | skrub | — | indirect |
| PyPI | sortedcontainers | 2.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | threadpoolctl | 3.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-extensions | 4.16.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-inspection | 0.4.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 1.26.20 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.7.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | utilsforecast | — | indirect |
Dependency advisories 6
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 80 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 24 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.
| Package | Version | Relation | Severity | Advisories | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pyarrow | 16.0.0 | direct | high | 3 | 23.0.1 |
| click | 8.2.1 | indirect | high | 1 | 8.3.3 |
| jinja2 | 3.1.2 | indirect | high | 10 | 3.1.6 |
| urllib3 | 1.26.20 | indirect | high | 10 | 2.7.0 |
| requests | 2.27.1 | indirect | moderate | 8 | 2.33.0 |
| scikit-learn | 1.4.2 | indirect | moderate | 2 | 1.5.0 |
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.