Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 17:46 UTC

lidatong / dataclasses-json

Easily serialize Data Classes to and from JSON

PythonMIT★ 1,485 stars⑂ 171 forkssince Apr 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#dataclasses#json#python

lidatong/dataclasses-json holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (63/100) and lowest on Vitality (35/100). It was last updated 76 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Charles LiPersonal account
70 followers43 public repossince Jul 2015

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 publish
PyPIdataclasses-json0.6.7-77771 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

18Critical
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 76 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push76
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

60Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 73 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 771 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~35 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count73
latest_release_tagv0.6.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release771
mean_days_between_releases35
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

Popularity & adoption

75Good
How it's scored
51.4/60Stars — 1,485 stars
18.6/25Forks — 171 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks171
stars1,485
watchers8
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 (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 66 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled66
top_contributor_share0.68

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good
How it's scored
25.9/42Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed
22/30PR acceptance — 140/191 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_prs140
open_issues129
closed_issues207
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.616
closed_unmerged_prs51
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.3/25Owner reach — 70 followers of lidatong
24/25Track record — 43 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers70
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginlidatong
public_repos43
account_age_days4,028
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

69Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 771 days ago
20/20Version history — 77 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdataclasses-json
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish771

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdataclasses, json, python
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

40Weak
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 55 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages5
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:dataclasses-json@0.6.7 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 5 packages. 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8
11/11Static type checking — dataclasses_json/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdataclasses_json/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (dataclasses_json/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/39 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes19,573
source_files_sampled39
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,485GitHub stars
66contributors
0commits, last 12 months
76days since last push
73releases
1bus factor
129open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 17:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Vulnerabilities55 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItyping-inspect>=0.4.0, <1pyproject.toml
PyPImarshmallow>=3.18.0,<4.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPImarshmallow3.19.0direct
PyPItyping-inspect0.9.0direct
PyPIattrs23.1.0indirect
PyPIblack22.12.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2023.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.2.0indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.2.7indirect
PyPIdocstring-parser0.15indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.1.3indirect
PyPIfalcon2.0.0indirect
PyPIflake85.0.4indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.10indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.32indirect
PyPIhug2.6.1indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.79.4indirect
PyPIidna3.4indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata4.2.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.2indirect
PyPIlivereload2.6.3indirect
PyPImako1.2.4indirect
PyPImarkdown3.3.4indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.2.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-material7.3.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.1.1indirect
PyPImypy1.4.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPIpackaging23.1indirect
PyPIpathspec0.11.2indirect
PyPIpdocs1.2.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs3.10.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.2.0indirect
PyPIportray1.7.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.9.1indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.5.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.16.1indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions7.1indirect
PyPIpytest7.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov2.12.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.8.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag0.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.31.0indirect
PyPIsimplejson3.19.1indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.0indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItornado6.2indirect
PyPItyped-ast1.5.5indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.7.1indirect
PyPIurllib32.0.4indirect
PyPIwatchdog3.0.0indirect
PyPIyaspin0.15.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:dataclasses-json@0.6.7 pulls in 5 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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 lidatong/dataclasses-json. Read them side by side →

98fastapi/fastapiFastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for productionExceptional97fastapi/sqlmodelSQL databases in Python, designed for simplicity, compatibility, and robustness.Exceptional100matplotlib/matplotlibmatplotlib: plotting with PythonExceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK Exceptional100numpy/numpyThe fundamental package for scientific computing with Python.Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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