Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 00:31 UTC

microsoft / CCF

Confidential Consortium Framework

C++ · PythonApache-2.0★ 876 stars⑂ 260 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#confidentiality #integrity #cpp #distributed-ledger #governance #javascript #typescript #framework #consortium #distributed-systems #ledger

microsoft/CCF holds a health index of 99 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (80/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Exceptional

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 89 is calibrated to 99 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MicrosoftOrganization · verified domain

129,466 followers8,300 public repossince Dec 2013

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	ccf	7.0.14	-	283	3 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36	Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 713 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	713
human_commit_share	0.97
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	52

Release discipline

98Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~9.3 days
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	ccf-7.0.14
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	3
mean_days_between_releases	9.3

Community & Adoption

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

80Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

76Good

How it's scored

47.7/60	Stars — 876 stars
20.1/25	Forks — 260 forks
8.6/15	Watchers — 36 watchers

Inputs used

forks	260
stars	876
watchers	36
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	2
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

88Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

64Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 33% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 63 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	63
top_contributor_share	0.331

Issue & PR responsiveness

94Exceptional

How it's scored

41.1/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
27.4/30	PR acceptance — 5,850/6,397 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 22/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	5,850
open_issues	40
closed_issues	1,752
prs_merged_7d	44
prs_decided_7d	48
prs_merged_30d	44
prs_decided_30d	49
issue_closed_ratio	0.978
closed_unmerged_prs	547
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 129,466 followers of microsoft
25/25	Track record — 8,300 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	129,466
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	microsoft
public_repos	8,300
account_age_days	4,657

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20	Version history — 283 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	ccf
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 18 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .ruff.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://ccf.dev/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 11 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	confidentiality, integrity, cpp, distributed-ledger, governance, javascript, typescript, framework, consortium, distributed-systems, ledger
has_wiki	no
homepage	http://ccf.dev/
docs_site	http://ccf.dev/
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?

88Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

85Excellent

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 22/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
3.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 22 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	8.5

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	7
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:ccf@7.0.14 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 7 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.

94Exceptional · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/changelog.instructions.md, .github/instructions/reviewing.instructions.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 96 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.99
agent_instruction_files	.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/changelog.instructions.md, .github/instructions/reviewing.instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	12,381

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

96Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — 3rdparty/exported/quickjs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .ruff.toml
11/11	Static type checking — js/ccf-app/test/tsconfig.json, js/ccf-app/tsconfig.json, python/src/ccf/py.typed, tests/js-interpreter-reuse/tsconfig.json, tests/npm-app/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 85 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	3rdparty/exported/quickjs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	yes
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	js/ccf-app/test/tsconfig.json, js/ccf-app/tsconfig.json, python/src/ccf/py.typed, tests/js-interpreter-reuse/tsconfig.json, tests/npm-app/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0.85
toolchain_manifests	3rdparty/internal/cose-openssl/Cargo.toml, 3rdparty/internal/tee-attestation-verification/Cargo.toml, 3rdparty/internal/tee-attestation-verification/attestation/Cargo.toml, 3rdparty/internal/tee-attestation-verification/caci/Cargo.toml, 3rdparty/internal/tee-attestation-verification/cbor/Cargo.toml, 3rdparty/internal/tee-attestation-verification/cose/Cargo.toml, 3rdparty/internal/tee-attestation-verification/crypto/Cargo.toml, 3rdparty/internal/tee-attestation-verification/ffi/Cargo.toml, src/cose/cose_rs/Cargo.toml, src/rust/Cargo.toml, tla/disaster-recovery/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.03

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
53.4/55	Manageable file sizes — 34/1,167 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C++
largest_source_bytes	2,020,354
source_files_sampled	1,167
oversized_source_files	34

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples, samples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples, samples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

876GitHub stars

63contributors

713commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

2bus factor

40open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'ccf' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 260 ⇿

0Stars

260Forks

98Releases

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 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.5 / 10

8.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 00:30 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
8	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: Passing
9	Code-Review	Found 22/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10	Contributors	project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
6	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
7	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
8	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0	Vulnerabilities	22 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	cbor2	`>= 5.6, < 7`	python/pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`>= 46, < 51`	python/pyproject.toml
PyPI	cwt	`>= 3.3.0, < 4`	python/pyproject.toml
PyPI	packaging	`>= 25, < 27`	python/pyproject.toml

All dependencies 171

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 167 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	cbor2	`—`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`—`	direct
PyPI	cwt	`—`	direct
PyPI	packaging	`—`	direct
crates.io	ahash	`0.8.12`	indirect
crates.io	anstream	`0.6.19`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle	`1.0.11`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle-parse	`0.2.7`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle-query	`1.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle-wincon	`3.0.9`	indirect
crates.io	ascii	`1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	autocfg	`1.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.13.1`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.9.1`	indirect
crates.io	bumpalo	`3.20.3`	indirect
crates.io	cborrs	`0.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	cborrs-nondet	`0.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	cc	`1.2.56`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	choice	`0.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	chunked_transfer	`1.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	clap	`4.5.40`	indirect
crates.io	clap_builder	`4.5.40`	indirect
crates.io	clap_derive	`4.5.40`	indirect
crates.io	clap_lex	`0.7.5`	indirect
crates.io	colorchoice	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-utils	`0.8.21`	indirect
crates.io	dashmap	`6.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	find-msvc-tools	`0.1.9`	indirect
crates.io	foreign-types	`0.3.2`	indirect
crates.io	foreign-types-shared	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	futures-core	`0.3.34`	indirect
crates.io	futures-task	`0.3.34`	indirect
crates.io	futures-util	`0.3.34`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.3.3`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.14.5`	indirect
crates.io	heck	`0.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	httpdate	`1.0.3`	indirect
crates.io	id-set	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	is_terminal_polyfill	`1.70.1`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.15`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	js-sys	`0.3.104`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.173`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.183`	indirect
crates.io	lock_api	`0.4.13`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.27`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.34`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.5`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.3`	indirect
crates.io	nohash-hasher	`0.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.4`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell_polyfill	`1.70.1`	indirect
crates.io	openssl	`0.10.81`	indirect
crates.io	openssl-macros	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	openssl-sys	`0.9.112`	indirect
crates.io	openssl-sys	`0.9.117`	indirect
crates.io	parking_lot	`0.12.4`	indirect
crates.io	parking_lot_core	`0.9.11`	indirect
crates.io	pin-project-lite	`0.2.17`	indirect
crates.io	pkg-config	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	ppv-lite86	`0.2.21`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.107`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.95`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.40`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.47`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`5.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	rand	`0.9.4`	indirect
crates.io	rand_chacha	`0.9.0`	indirect
crates.io	rand_core	`0.9.3`	indirect
crates.io	redox_syscall	`0.5.13`	indirect
crates.io	rustversion	`1.0.23`	indirect
crates.io	ryu	`1.0.20`	indirect
crates.io	scopeguard	`1.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	serde	`1.0.219`	indirect
crates.io	serde	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.219`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.140`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.151`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`1.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	slab	`0.4.12`	indirect
crates.io	smallvec	`1.15.1`	indirect
crates.io	stateright	`0.31.0`	indirect
crates.io	strsim	`0.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.103`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.119`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`3.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	tiny_http	`0.12.0`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	utf8parse	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	vcpkg	`0.2.15`	indirect
crates.io	version_check	`0.9.5`	indirect
crates.io	wasi	`0.14.2+wasi-0.2.4`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-futures	`0.4.77`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-macro	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-macro-support	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-shared	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.59.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-targets	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-rt	`0.39.0`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy	`0.8.25`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy	`0.8.56`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy-derive	`0.8.25`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy-derive	`0.8.56`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.23`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-commonjs	`^17.1.0`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-commonjs	`^26.0.1`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-node-resolve	`^11.2.0`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-node-resolve	`^15.2.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-typescript	`^11.1.6`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-typescript	`^8.2.0`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`^26.0.1`	indirect
npm	@types/node-forge	`^1.0.0`	indirect
npm	node-forge	`^1.2.0`	indirect
npm	rollup	`^4.18.0`	indirect
npm	tslib	`^2.0.1`	indirect
npm	tslib	`^2.6.3`	indirect
npm	typedoc	`0.28.20`	indirect
npm	typescript	`6.0.2`	indirect
npm	typescript	`^5.9.2`	indirect
npm	typescript	`^7.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	aiohttp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	better-exceptions	`—`	indirect
PyPI	boofuzz	`—`	indirect
PyPI	breathe	`—`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`—`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`—`	indirect
PyPI	gelidum	`—`	indirect
PyPI	gitpython	`—`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	hvplot	`—`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`—`	indirect
PyPI	jwcrypto	`—`	indirect
PyPI	locust	`—`	indirect
PyPI	loguru	`—`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib	`—`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	openapi-core	`—`	indirect
PyPI	openapi-spec-validator	`—`	indirect
PyPI	polars	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyarrow	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwt	`—`	indirect
PyPI	requests-http-signature	`—`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autobuild	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-copybutton	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-inline-tabs	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-mdinclude	`0.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-multiversion	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-panels	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-mermaid	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-openapi	`—`	indirect
PyPI	websocket	`—`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:ccf@7.0.14 pulls in 7 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records