Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-25 07:07 UTC

lfreleng-actions / github2gerrit-action

Python tool for converting Github pull requests to Gerrit changes, with GitHub action wrapper

PythonApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Aug 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#ci#gerrit#github#python#workflow

lfreleng-actions/github2gerrit-action holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (32/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LF Release Engineering ActionsOrganization
7 followers130 public repossince Mar 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIgithub2gerrit2.4.02,636540 days agoactionscicligerritgithubtyper

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 873 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year873
human_commit_share0.83
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 38 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.6 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count38
latest_release_tagv2.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases6.6

Community & Adoption

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

32At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

57Moderate
How it's scored
45.6/80Monthly downloads — 2,636 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgithub2gerrit
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,636
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?

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 85% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.848

Issue & PR responsiveness

99Exceptional
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance — 405/422 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs405
open_issues0
closed_issues33
prs_merged_7d7
prs_decided_7d7
prs_merged_30d20
prs_decided_30d20
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs17
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.

Ownership & stewardship

53Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
6.5/25Owner reach — 7 followers of lfreleng-actions
16.1/25Track record — 130 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginlfreleng-actions
public_repos130
account_age_days561

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 — 54 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub2gerrit
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsci, gerrit, github, python, workflow
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

86Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

83Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 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 — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
1/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
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_aggregate8.3
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 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_packages49
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 49 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 83 of 83 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

71Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 51 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.51
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.14

Code legibility for models

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.4/55Manageable file sizes — 4/137 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes290,731
source_files_sampled137
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

0GitHub stars
6contributors
873commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
38releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index pypi:github2gerrit@2.4.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
17Releases

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.

111222212025-082026-012026-05
Major 1Minor 2Patch 14
OpenSSF Scorecard 8.3 / 10
8.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-25 07:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItyper>=0.20.1pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=14.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyGithub>=2.8.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpygerrit2>=2.0.15pyproject.toml
PyPIgit-review>=2.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML>=6.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIPyNaCl>=1.6.2pyproject.toml
PyPIurllib3>=2.6.3pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=48.0.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcryptography50.0.1direct
PyPIgit-review2.5.0direct
PyPIpygerrit22.0.15direct
PyPIpygithub2.10.0direct
PyPIpynacl1.6.2direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPItyper0.27.2direct
PyPIurllib32.7.0direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.11.12indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.10.6indirect
PyPIhatch-vcs0.5.0indirect
PyPIhatchling1.32.0indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIpbr7.0.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIresponses0.26.3indirect
PyPIruff0.16.7indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm9.2.2indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItrove-classifiers2025.12.1.14indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260906indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.33.0.20260906indirect
PyPItypes-urllib31.26.25.14indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 49 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with lfreleng-actions/github2gerrit-action. Read them side by side →

98pypa/pipxInstall and Run Python Applications in Isolated EnvironmentsExceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100PrefectHQ/prefectPrefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python.Exceptional100aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional99pypa/cibuildwheel🎡 Build Python wheels for all the platforms with minimal configuration. Exceptional99apache/supersetApache Superset is a Data Visualization and Data Exploration PlatformExceptional

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.