Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 13:53 UTC

mahmoud / glom

☄️ Python's nested data operator (and CLI), for all your declarative restructuring needs. Got data? Glom it! ☄️

PythonCustom license★ 2,163 stars⑂ 78 forkssince Apr 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#declarative#data#recursion#python#utilities#cli#nested-structures#data-transformation#apis#dictionaries

mahmoud/glom holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 40 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mahmoud HashemiPersonal account
2,489 followers81 public repossince Sep 2009@hatnote

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
PyPIglom25.12.025,120,24626241 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

42Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

36Weak
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 40 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push40
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

50Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 23 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 241 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~218.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count23
latest_release_tagv25.12.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release241
mean_days_between_releases218.4
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?

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

77Good
How it's scored
54.1/60Stars — 2,163 stars
15.7/25Forks — 78 forks
7.2/15Watchers — 21 watchers
Inputs used
forks78
stars2,163
watchers21
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 25,120,246 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesglom
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads25,120,246
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

37Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 79% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.792

Issue & PR responsiveness

52Moderate
How it's scored
19.3/42Issue resolution — 46% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance — 86/98 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs86
open_issues100
closed_issues85
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.459
closed_unmerged_prs12
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

74Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
24.4/25Owner reach — 2,489 followers of mahmoud
25/25Track record — 81 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,489
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmahmoud
public_repos81
account_age_days6,182
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 241 days ago
20/20Version history — 26 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesglom
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish241

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

72Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://glom.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdeclarative, data, recursion, python, utilities, cli, nested-structures, data-transformation, apis, dictionaries
has_wikino
homepagehttps://glom.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://glom.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

62Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 43 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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_packages3
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:glom@25.12.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

16Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history — 30 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.3
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.3/55Manageable file sizes — 1/32 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes89,922
source_files_sampled32
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

2,163GitHub stars
18contributors
12commits, last 12 months
40days since last push
23releases
1bus factor
100open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 78 ⇿
0Stars
78Forks
20Releases

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.

0204060807842018-052022-072026-08
Major 0Minor 17Patch 3

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 13:53 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
4CI-Tests3 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities43 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 55

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 55 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIatomicwrites1.4.1indirect
PyPIattrs—indirect
PyPIattrs24.2.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.11.0indirect
PyPIboltons—indirect
PyPIboltons24.1.0indirect
PyPIcachetools5.5.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2022.12.7indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.0.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.2.7indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.9indirect
PyPIdocutils0.17.1indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.2indirect
PyPIface—indirect
PyPIface24.0.0indirect
PyPIfilelock3.12.2indirect
PyPIidna3.4indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata6.7.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.2indirect
PyPIlivereload2.6.3indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.1indirect
PyPImore-itertools9.0.0indirect
PyPIpackaging24.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.0.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.2.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.14.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.5.3indirect
PyPIpytest7.4.4indirect
PyPIpytz2022.7.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.28.2indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx5.3.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild2021.3.14indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme1.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItornado6.2indirect
PyPItox4.8.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.7.1indirect
PyPIurllib31.26.14indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.26.6indirect
PyPIzipp3.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:glom@25.12.0 pulls in 3 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 mahmoud/glom. Read them side by side →

100PrefectHQ/prefectPrefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python.Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional99apache/supersetApache Superset is a Data Visualization and Data Exploration PlatformExceptional99aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional98pypa/pipxInstall and Run Python Applications in Isolated EnvironmentsExceptional98awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional

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.