Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-11 13:50 UTC

molssi-seamm / lammps_step

A SEAMM plug-in for LAMMPS, a forcefield-based molecular dynamics code.

PythonCustom license★ 2 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jan 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

molssi-seamm/lammps_step holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (87/100) and lowest on Security (20/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MolSSI SEAMMOrganization
22 followers80 public repossince Jun 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIlammps_step2026.10.112,5041080 days agoseammplug-inflowchartforcefieldeamopenkimmolecular-dynamicsatomisticmd

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 107 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year107
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag2026.10.11
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.9

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.3/80Monthly downloads — 2,504 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslammps_step
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,504
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 77% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.769
How it's scored
25.2/42Issue resolution — 60% of issues closed
29.5/30PR acceptance — 111/113 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs111
open_issues2
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d17
prs_decided_30d17
issue_closed_ratio0.6
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.8/25Owner reach — 22 followers of molssi-seamm
25/25Track record — 80 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers22
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmolssi-seamm
public_repos80
account_age_days2,669

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 108 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslammps_step
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

87Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscomputational-chemistry, computational-materials-science, molssi, molssi-seamm, lammps
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?

20At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
20/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsrequirements.txt, requirements_dev.txt, setup.cfg, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowyes
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno

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.

55Moderate · 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 — 75 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.75
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 40 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.4
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.3/55Manageable file sizes — 2/66 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes143,112
source_files_sampled66
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

2GitHub stars
5contributors
107commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
2open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:lammps_step@2026.10.11; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
29Releases

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.

111222212022-112024-022025-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 26

Each point covers 3 days.

All dependencies 21

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 21 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIblack—indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPImodel-chemistry-step—indirect
PyPImolsystem—indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpmw—indirect
PyPIpy-cpuinfo—indirect
PyPIpymbar—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-runner—indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIseamm—indirect
PyPIseamm-exec—indirect
PyPIseamm-ff-util—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIstatsmodels—indirect
PyPItabulate—indirect
PyPItox—indirect
PyPItwine—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.