Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 16:07 UTC

moskrc / crawlerdetect

🕷CrawlerDetect is a Python library designed to identify bots, crawlers, and spiders by analyzing their user agents.

PythonMIT★ 45 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

moskrc/crawlerdetect holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

VitaliiPersonal account
44 followers56 public repossince Aug 2010

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
PyPIcrawlerdetect0.4.253,4362046 days agocrawlercrawler-detectcrawler-detectorcrawlerdetectpython-crawler-detect

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 14 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 46 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~69.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv0.4.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release46
mean_days_between_releases69.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

51Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
26.7/60Stars — 45 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars45
watchers2
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_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63/80Monthly downloads — 53,436 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescrawlerdetect
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads53,436
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
8.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 62% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.623
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
21.2/30PR acceptance — 12/17 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs12
open_issues0
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.9/25Owner reach — 44 followers of moskrc
24.8/25Track record — 56 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers44
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmoskrc
public_repos56
account_age_days5,874
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 46 days ago
20/20Version history — 20 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescrawlerdetect
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish46

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/moskrc/crawlerdetect
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, user-agent, crawler, spider, bot, detect
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://github.com/moskrc/crawlerdetect
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 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
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories25
affected_packages8
assessed_packages83
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 3, moderate 4, low 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 83 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12/40Legible commit history — 18 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.225
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 80
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_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes29,699
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

45GitHub stars
7contributors
12commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks
10Releases

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.

0246810121212020-102023-082026-05
Major 0Minor 1Patch 9

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 16:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 83

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 83 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIbracex2.5.post1indirect
PyPIbracex3.0.1indirect
PyPIbump-my-version0.28.1indirect
PyPIbump-my-version1.5.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.2indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.5indirect
PyPIcrawlerdetect0.4.2indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.9indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.9.1indirect
PyPIhttpx22.9.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.2indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.0.1indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.1indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.36indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.53indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic2.9.2indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.23.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.14.2indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.6.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.18.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.3indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov6.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.5.0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.0.1indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIquestionary2.0.1indirect
PyPIquestionary2.1.1indirect
PyPIrich13.9.4indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIrich-click1.8.4indirect
PyPIrich-click1.9.8indirect
PyPIruff0.16.0indirect
PyPIruff0.7.3indirect
PyPItomli2.1.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.2indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.12.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.27.1indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.0indirect
PyPIwcmatch10.0indirect
PyPIwcmatch11.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.2.13indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 83 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.1.7indirecthigh18.3.3
httpcore22.9.1indirecthigh22.10.0
httpx22.9.1indirecthigh102.12.0
filelock3.16.1indirectmoderate43.20.3
pytest8.3.3indirectmoderate29.0.3
python-dotenv1.0.1indirectmoderate21.2.2
virtualenv20.27.1indirectmoderate220.36.1
pygments2.18.0indirectlow22.20.0

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.