Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 00:18 UTC

mkorman90 / regipy

Regipy is an os independent python library for parsing offline registry hives

Python · RustMIT★ 277 stars⑂ 60 forkssince Mar 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

mkorman90/regipy holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (61/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Martin KormanPersonal account
67 followers7 public repossince Sep 2013

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
PyPIregipy6.5.066,706920 days agopythonpython3registrywindows-registryregistry-parser
PyPIregipy-rs0.1.0a2282215 days agoregistrywindows-registryregistry-parserforensicsdfirrust

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 136 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year136
human_commit_share0.82
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 66 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~32.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count66
latest_release_tag6.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases32.3

Community & Adoption

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

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.6/60Stars — 277 stars
14.8/25Forks — 60 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks60
stars277
watchers5
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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesapi.securityscorecards.dev
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
64.3/80Monthly downloads — 66,988 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesregipy, regipy-rs
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads66,988
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
10.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 24 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled24
top_contributor_share0.52
How it's scored
38.6/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
19.4/30PR acceptance — 192/297 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs192
open_issues4
closed_issues45
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.918
closed_unmerged_prs105
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.2/25Owner reach — 67 followers of mkorman90
18.6/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers67
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmkorman90
public_repos7
account_age_days4,779
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 92 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesregipy, regipy-rs
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

67Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 13 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 — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.9
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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages22
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
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 22 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 68 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.829
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes19,349
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — regipy-rs/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — pyrightconfig.json, regipy/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 18 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspyrightconfig.json, regipy/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsregipy-rs/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.18
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json, regipy/py.typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 1/182 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes64,739
source_files_sampled182
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

277GitHub stars
24contributors
136commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
66releases
1bus factor
4open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'regipy-rs' from its registry
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:regipy@6.5.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 60 ⇿
0Stars
60Forks
63Releases

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.

01020304050606042019-032022-122026-09
Major 4Minor 18Patch 38

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-12 00:18 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
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIconstruct>=2.10pyproject.toml
PyPIinflection>=0.5.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpytz—pyproject.toml
crates.iopyo30.29regipy-rs/Cargo.toml
crates.iomemmap20.9regipy-rs/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iomemmap20.9.11direct
crates.iopyo30.29.0direct
PyPIconstruct—direct
PyPIconstruct2.10.70direct
PyPIinflection—direct
PyPIinflection0.5.1direct
PyPIpytz—direct
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.13.1indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.29.0indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.46indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.118indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.5indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
PyPIattrs—indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIlibfwps-python20260522indirect
PyPIlibfwsi-python20240423indirect
PyPImaturin—indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIregipy-rs—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPItabulate0.10.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 22 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pytest8.4.2indirectmoderate29.0.3

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.