Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-11 07:26 UTC

msiemens / tinydb

TinyDB is a lightweight document oriented database optimized for your happiness :)

PythonMIT★ 7,550 stars⑂ 623 forkssince Jul 2013View on GitHub ↗

msiemens/tinydb holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (61/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Markus SiemensPersonal account
291 followers26 public repossince Jun 2012Vivavis AG

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
PyPItinydb4.9.06,438,555704 days agodatabasenosql

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume25 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases64 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 4 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~205.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count64
latest_release_tagv4.9.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases205.1
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?

87Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars7,550 stars
23.3/25Forks623 forks
11.1/15Watchers102 watchers
Inputs used
forks623
stars7,550
watchers102
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads6,438,555 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestinydb
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads6,438,555
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth90 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled90
top_contributor_share0.824
How it's scored
41.5/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
20.8/30PR acceptance139/200 decided PRs merged
7.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance6/10 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs139
open_issues4
closed_issues325
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d9
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio0.988
closed_unmerged_prs61
first_time_authors_30d6
first_time_prs_merged_30d6
first_time_prs_decided_30d10
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
17.7/25Owner reach291 followers of msiemens
22.4/25Track record26 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers291
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmsiemens
public_repos26
account_age_days5,164
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 4 days ago
20/20Version history70 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestinydb
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://tinydb.readthedocs.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, nosql, database, documentdb, json
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://tinydb.readthedocs.org
docs_sitehttps://tinydb.readthedocs.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.8/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Maintained13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
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
2/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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_packages53
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 53 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history99 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingmypy.ini, tinydb/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, tinydb/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (mypy.ini, tinydb/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes29,041
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

7,550GitHub stars
90contributors
25commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
64releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 623 ⇿
0Stars
623Forks
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.

012525037550062561372013-082020-022026-08
Major 4Minor 30Patch 28

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-11 07:25 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
3CI-Tests5 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 53

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 53 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.4.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.3.3indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.0indirect
PyPIcoveralls4.1.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.0indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mypy1.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest-pycodestyle2.5.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals-py4.1.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx8.2.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItinydb4.9.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyper0.25.1indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260510indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 53 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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