Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 06:52 UTC

mcbeet / beet

The Minecraft pack development kit.

PythonMIT★ 305 stars⑂ 26 forkssince Aug 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

mcbeet/beet holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BeetOrganization · verified domain
69 followers9 public repossince Feb 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIbeet0.119.112,02928818 days agobeetminecraftdatapackresourcepackmcfunction

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 175 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year175
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagmecha-v0.106.1-beta.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.1

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.3/60Stars — 305 stars
11.7/25Forks — 26 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks26
stars305
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
54.4/80Monthly downloads — 12,029 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbeet
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads12,029
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.694
How it's scored
31/42Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed
11.6/30PR acceptance — 181/469 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs181
open_issues11
closed_issues31
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.738
closed_unmerged_prs288
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
13.3/25Owner reach — 69 followers of mcbeet
18.6/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers69
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginmcbeet
public_repos9
account_age_days2,066

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 18 days ago
20/20Version history — 288 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbeet
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish18

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://mcbeet.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbeet, minecraft, datapack, mcfunction, resourcepack
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://mcbeet.dev
docs_sitehttps://mcbeet.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 12 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 71 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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_packages15
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:beet@0.119.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 15 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — packages/bolt/src/bolt/py.typed, packages/lectern/src/lectern/py.typed, packages/mecha/src/mecha/py.typed, src/beet/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configspackages/bolt/src/bolt/py.typed, packages/lectern/src/lectern/py.typed, packages/mecha/src/mecha/py.typed, src/beet/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (packages/bolt/src/bolt/py.typed, packages/lectern/src/lectern/py.typed, packages/mecha/src/mecha/py.typed, src/beet/py.typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 3/273 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes101,878
source_files_sampled273
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example, examples, recipes
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples, recipes
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

305GitHub stars
18contributors
175commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
11open 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 ★ / 26 ⇿
0Stars
26Forks
94Releases

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.

05101520252512021-022023-122026-10
Major 0Minor 24Patch 26

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 06:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities71 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIclick>=8.3.1pyproject.toml
PyPIclick-help-colors>=0.9.4pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2>=3.1.6pyproject.toml
PyPInbtlib==1.12.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpathspec>=0.12.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow>=12.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.12.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml>=6.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPItoml>=0.10.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 52 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIclick8.3.1direct
PyPIclick-help-colors0.9.4direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPInbtlib1.12.1direct
PyPIpathspec0.12.1direct
PyPIpillow12.0.0direct
PyPIpydantic2.12.4direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPItoml0.10.2direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIbasedpyright1.33.0indirect
PyPIbeet—indirect
PyPIbeet0.119.1indirect
PyPIbolt0.51.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.11.12indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick-option-group0.5.9indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdeepmerge2.0indirect
PyPIdeprecated1.3.1indirect
PyPIdotty-dict1.3.1indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.45indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources6.5.2indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIlectern0.35.0indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py—indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImecha—indirect
PyPImecha0.106.0indirect
PyPInodejs-wheel-binaries22.20.0indirect
PyPInumpy2.3.4indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.20.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest-insta0.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-minecraft0.2.0indirect
PyPIpython-gitlab6.5.0indirect
PyPIpython-semantic-release10.5.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrich14.2.0indirect
PyPIruff0.14.5indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.2indirect
PyPItokenstream—indirect
PyPItokenstream1.7.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIuv-build—indirect
PyPIwrapt2.0.1indirect
PyPIzensical0.0.20indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:beet@0.119.1 pulls in 15 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.

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.