Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-02 11:58 UTC

marph91 / jimmy

Convert your notes to Markdown

PythonGPL-3.0★ 517 stars⑂ 26 forkssince Apr 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindTerminal interfacehow this is determined

marph91/jimmy holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

marph91Personal account

38 followers46 public repossince Oct 2017

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

94Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
29.8/36	Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 320 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	320
human_commit_share	0.99
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	43

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 88 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 7 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~17 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	88
latest_release_tag	v1.1.28
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	7
mean_days_between_releases	17

Community & Adoption

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

63Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

57Moderate

How it's scored

44/60	Stars — 517 stars
11.7/25	Forks — 26 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	26
stars	517
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

44Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

15Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.989

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good

How it's scored

35.8/42	Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
20.6/30	PR acceptance — 22/32 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	22
open_issues	9
closed_issues	52
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.852
closed_unmerged_prs	10
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

57Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.4/25	Owner reach — 38 followers of marph91
24.2/25	Track record — 46 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	38
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	marph91
public_repos	46
account_age_days	3,197

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://marph91.github.io/jimmy/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 20 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	google-keep, markdown, pandoc, simplenote, tiddlywiki, notion, obsidian, synology, zoho, standard-notes, standardnotes, textbundle, bear, markdown-converter, joplin, microsoft-office, telegram, cherrytree, onenote, signal
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://marph91.github.io/jimmy/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
2.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.8

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	124
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 124 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

18Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.3/40	Legible commit history — 34 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.343
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

45Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.01

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/73 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	30,976
source_files_sampled	73
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

517GitHub stars

4contributors

320commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

88releases

1bus factor

9open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch pypi package 'jimmy' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 26 ⇿

0Stars

26Forks

83Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 2Patch 80

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10

4.8aggregate

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 11:57 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
5	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 16

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	anyblock-exporter	`@ git+https://github.com/jfcostello/AnyBlock-To-Markdown.git@af1d744`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`==4.15.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`==48.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	markdown	`==3.10.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pdf-oxide	`==0.3.69`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	platformdirs	`==4.10.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	puremagic	`==2.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pycrdt	`==0.14.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pypandoc	`==1.17`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyparsing	`==3.3.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-frontmatter	`==1.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`==6.0.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`==15.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	signal-export	`==3.8.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	textual	`==8.2.7`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	textual-fspicker	`==1.0.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 124

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 108 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	anyblock-exporter	`0.0.1`	direct
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`48.0.1`	direct
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.2`	direct
PyPI	pdf-oxide	`0.3.69`	direct
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.0`	direct
PyPI	puremagic	`2.2.0`	direct
PyPI	pycrdt	`0.14.1`	direct
PyPI	pypandoc	`1.17`	direct
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	direct
PyPI	python-frontmatter	`1.3.0`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	direct
PyPI	signal-export	`3.8.3`	direct
PyPI	textual	`8.2.7`	direct
PyPI	textual-fspicker	`1.0.1`	direct
PyPI	altgraph	`0.17.5`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	astroid	`4.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	brotli	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	brotlicffi	`1.2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.6.17`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	chardet	`7.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	deepmerge	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	dill	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	distro	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.23`	indirect
PyPI	emoji	`2.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatch	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`1.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore2	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	hyperlink	`21.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	inflate64	`1.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`8.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	linkify-it-py	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	macholib	`1.16.4`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	multivolumefile	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	parameterized	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pefile	`2024.8.26`	indirect
PyPI	pexpect	`4.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`7.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	ptyprocess	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	py7zr	`1.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	pybcj	`1.0.8`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycryptodome	`3.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycryptodomex	`3.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller	`6.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller-hooks-contrib	`2026.6`	indirect
PyPI	pylint	`4.0.6`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`10.21.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyppmd	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-sugar	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`45.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.20`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`83.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.9`	indirect
PyPI	sqlcipher3-wheels	`0.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	termcolor	`3.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	texttable	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`4.69.0`	indirect
PyPI	trove-classifiers	`2026.6.1.19`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	typer	`0.27.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-beautifulsoup4	`4.12.0.20250516`	indirect
PyPI	types-html5lib	`1.1.11.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-markdown	`3.10.2.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-webencodings	`0.5.0.20260408`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	uc-micro-py	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	userpath	`1.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	uv	`0.11.30`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	zensical	`0.0.51`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 124 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pymdown-extensions	`10.21.3`	indirect	moderate	1	`11.0.0`

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Related records