Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 20:22 UTC

mkb79 / audible-cli

A command line interface for audible package. With the cli you can download your Audible books, cover, chapter files.

PythonAGPL-3.0★ 766 stars⑂ 65 forkssince Sep 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

mkb79/audible-cli holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (67/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (27/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

mkb79Personal account
29 followers15 public repossince Jun 2018

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 publishTags
PyPIaudible-cli0.4.0-240 days agoapiaudibleasynccli

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume13 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases22 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~114.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv0.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases114.2

Community & Adoption

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

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
46.8/60Stars766 stars
15.1/25Forks65 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks65
stars766
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.893
How it's scored
27.7/42Issue resolution66% of issues closed
22.1/30PR acceptance73/99 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs73
open_issues43
closed_issues83
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.659
closed_unmerged_prs26
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.6/25Owner reach29 followers of mkb79
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers29
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmkb79
public_repos15
account_age_days2,954
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history24 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaudible-cli
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssubcommands, toml, profiles, python, download, aax, aaxc, cover, chapter, pdf
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.2/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages36
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 36 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
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_testsno
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/31 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes29,149
source_files_sampled31
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

766GitHub stars
17contributors
13commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
43open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index pypi:audible-cli@0.4.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 20:22 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
1CI-Tests4 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 8/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIaiofiles>=25.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIaudible>=0.11.0pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.4.2pyproject.toml
PyPIcolorama>=0.4.6pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.27.2,<0.29pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging>=26.2pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow>=12.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPItabulate>=0.10.0pyproject.toml
PyPItoml>=0.10.2pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm>=4.69.0pyproject.toml
PyPIquestionary>=2.1.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 25 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiofiles25.1.0direct
PyPIaudible0.11.0direct
PyPIclick8.4.2direct
PyPIcolorama0.4.6direct
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPIpackaging26.2direct
PyPIpillow12.3.0direct
PyPIquestionary2.1.1direct
PyPItabulate0.10.0direct
PyPItoml0.10.2direct
PyPItqdm4.69.0direct
PyPIaltgraph0.17.5indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIaudible-cli0.4.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIcryptography49.0.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPImacholib1.16.4indirect
PyPIpbkdf21.3indirect
PyPIpefile2024.8.26indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.52indirect
PyPIpyaes1.6.1indirect
PyPIpyasn10.6.4indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpyinstaller6.21.0indirect
PyPIpyinstaller-hooks-contrib2026.6indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIrsa4.9.1indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 36 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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