Public record
Software health reportschema 0.29.0 · metrics 2.7.0 · 2026-08-02 21:45 UTC

luisgf / openbadgeslib

Production-ready Python library & CLI for Open Badges 3.0 (W3C Verifiable Credentials): issue, verify, and revoke JWT-VC credentials with Bitstring Status Lists and did:web — plus strict OB 2.0 and legacy OB 1.0.

PythonLGPL-3.0★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#cryptography#did#did-web#digital-credentials#ed25519#ob3#open-badges#openbadges#python#revocation#vc-jwt#verifiable-credentials#w3c-vc#bitstring-status-list

luisgf/openbadgeslib holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Luis González FernándezPersonal account
15 followers19 public repossince Sep 2012

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
PyPIopenbadgeslib4.3.1-400 days agoopenbadgesopen-badgesverifiable-credentialsvc-jwtw3c-vcdigital-credentialsdiddid-webbitstring-status-listrevocationob3credentialsed25519cryptographydata-integrityeddsa

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

69Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 349 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year349
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tagv4.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.8
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?

36Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (LGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
40.4/42Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 72/72 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs72
open_issues9
closed_issues219
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d13
issue_closed_ratio0.961
closed_unmerged_prs0
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

50Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8.7/25Owner reach — 15 followers of luisgf
21.5/25Track record — 19 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers15
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginluisgf
public_repos19
account_age_days5,075
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 — 40 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopenbadgeslib
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://luisgf.github.io/openbadgeslib/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 14 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscryptography, did, did-web, digital-credentials, ed25519, ob3, open-badges, openbadges, python, revocation, vc-jwt, verifiable-credentials, w3c-vc, bitstring-status-list
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://luisgf.github.io/openbadgeslib/
docs_sitehttps://luisgf.github.io/openbadgeslib/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): ci_tests, 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.

51Moderate · 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 — 97 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — openbadgeslib/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsopenbadgeslib/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (openbadgeslib/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/122 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes46,510
source_files_sampled122
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
349commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
34releases
1bus factor
9open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index pypi:openbadgeslib@4.3.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-02 21:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpypng>=0.20220715.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyJWT>=2.13pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=45pyproject.toml
PyPIdefusedxml>=0.7pyproject.toml
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcryptography—direct
PyPIdefusedxml—direct
PyPIpyjwt—direct
PyPIpypng—direct
PyPIclick—indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPIgitlint-core—indirect
PyPIjsonschema—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIopenvc-core—indirect
PyPIpdoc—indirect
PyPIpyld—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsh—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with luisgf/openbadgeslib. Read them side by side →

97theupdateframework/python-tufPython reference implementation of The Update Framework (TUF)Exceptional96pyca/cryptographycryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers.Exceptional100matplotlib/matplotlibmatplotlib: plotting with PythonExceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional100optuna/optunaA hyperparameter optimization frameworkExceptional

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 v2.7.0, schema v0.29.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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