Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 22:23 UTC

mabel-dev / opteryx-core

⚙️ Opteryx Query Engine + Rugo File Driver

Python · C++ · CythonApache-2.0★ 4 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

mabel-dev/opteryx-core holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OpteryxOrganization
4 followers29 public repossince May 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iocomputepoints to another repo — not scored0.2.3183331808 days agocomputestatisticsdatascience
PyPIopteryx_corepoints to another repo — not scored0.9.7811,752280 days ago
PyPIrugo0.4.3411,655412 days ago
PyPIlibskene0.2.03,52192 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence37/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,122 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,122
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year37

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagopteryx-0.9.78
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.2
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?

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars4 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars4
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
55.7/80Monthly downloads15,176 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrugo, libskene
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads15,176
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.997
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance77/92 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs77
open_issues0
closed_issues53
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs15
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
5/25Owner reach4 followers of mabel-dev
21.3/25Track record29 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmabel-dev
public_repos29
account_age_days1,926

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history41 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrugo, libskene
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows14 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://opteryx.app
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscython, data, sql
has_wikino
homepagehttps://opteryx.app
docs_sitehttps://opteryx.app
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
5.2/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities68 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: pyo3 0.28.2 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages1
assessed_packages29
unassessed_packages24
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 29 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.

79Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.4
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,438
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, skene/Makefile, tests/fuzzing/native/Makefile, third_party/curl/Makefile, third_party/re2/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
11/11Static type checkingthird_party/usearch/simsimd/python/annotations/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, skene/Makefile, tests/fuzzing/native/Makefile, third_party/curl/Makefile, third_party/re2/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsthird_party/usearch/simsimd/python/annotations/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, third_party/usearch/simsimd/Cargo.toml, third_party/usearch/simsimd/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (third_party/usearch/simsimd/python/annotations/py.typed)
53.6/55Manageable file sizes35/1,403 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes1,425,252
source_files_sampled1,403
oversized_source_files35
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)third_party/curl/plan9/mkfile.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesthird_party/curl/plan9/mkfile.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

4GitHub stars
2contributors
1,122commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'opteryx.third_party.mbleven' from its registry
  • crates package 'compute' points at a different repository (https://github.com/al-jshen/compute); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • pypi package 'opteryx_core' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mabel-dev/opteryx.git); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:opteryx_core@0.9.78; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

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 · 2026-08-22 22:21 UTC

7Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 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
10SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities68 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iopythonize0.28Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.171Cargo.toml
crates.iopyo30.28Cargo.toml
crates.iosqlparser0.62.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 53

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iopyo30.28.2direct
crates.iopythonize0.28.0direct
crates.ioserde1.0.228direct
crates.iosqlparser0.62.0direct
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.180indirect
crates.iolog0.4.29indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.3indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.13.0indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.105indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.28.2indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.28.2indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.28.2indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.28.2indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.43indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.114indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.4indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.22indirect
PyPIblackindirect
PyPIcoverageindirect
PyPIcythonindirect
PyPIfreezegun1.5.5indirect
PyPIfuzzy1.2.2indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-storageindirect
PyPIhypothesisindirect
PyPIisortindirect
PyPIjellyfishindirect
PyPIminioindirect
PyPImypyindirect
PyPIopenpyxlindirect
PyPIopteryx-core0.6.65indirect
PyPIorjsonindirect
PyPIorjson3.11.8indirect
PyPIprotobufindirect
PyPIpyarrowindirect
PyPIpyclnindirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpysimdjsonindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-xdistindirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIrichindirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIsetuptools-rustindirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsqloxideindirect
PyPItravers0.1.11indirect
PyPItypes-orjsonindirect
PyPItypes-pyyamlindirect
PyPIvalkeyindirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 29 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 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.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pyo30.28.2directhigh40.29.0

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.

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 statisticscrates.io, PyPI.