Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 17:05 UTC

ncbi / datasets

NCBI Datasets is a new resource that lets you easily gather data from across NCBI databases.

Jupyter Notebook · GoCustom license★ 556 stars⑂ 67 forkssince Apr 2020View on GitHub ↗

ncbi/datasets holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (31/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
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.

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

Ownership

2,938 followers152 public repossince Mar 2013

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
16.2/18Commit volume — 63 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year63
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~11.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv18.37.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases11.5

Community & Adoption

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

66Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44.5/60Stars — 556 stars
15.2/25Forks — 67 forks
8/15Watchers — 28 watchers
Inputs used
forks67
stars556
watchers28
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
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

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
7.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 67% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.669
How it's scored
38.8/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
29.4/30PR acceptance — 271/277 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs271
open_issues24
closed_issues293
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.924
closed_unmerged_prs6
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
24.9/25Owner reach — 2,938 followers of ncbi
25/25Track record — 152 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,938
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginncbi
public_repos152
account_age_days4,933

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

31At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgenomics-data, ncbi
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets
docs_sitehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories45
affected_packages7
assessed_packages49
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 3, moderate 2, unknown 2
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 49 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.5/40Legible commit history — 46 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.46
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — client/apps/public/Datasets/v2/go.mod, client/go/util/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsclient/apps/public/Datasets/v2/go.mod, client/go/util/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Jupyter Notebook without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/88 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJupyter Notebook
largest_source_bytes17,997
source_files_sampled88
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

556GitHub stars
8contributors
63commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
24open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 67 ⇿
0Stars
67Forks
98Releases

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.

01325385063756422020-062023-072026-08
Major 1Minor 63Patch 34

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 17:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
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.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gobou.ke/monkey1.0.2indirect
Gogithub.com/antihax/optional1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/araddon/dateparse0.0.0-20210429162001-6b43995a97deindirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-units0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-units0.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotify1.4.9indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/protobuf1.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/gosuri/uilive0.0.3indirect
Gogithub.com/gosuri/uilive0.0.4indirect
Gogithub.com/gosuri/uiprogress0.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-cleanhttp0.5.1indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-cleanhttp0.5.2indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp0.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp0.7.7indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/magiconair/properties1.8.2indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isatty0.0.12indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isatty0.0.20indirect
Gogithub.com/mcuadros/go-lookup0.0.0-20200831155250-80f87a4fa5eeindirect
Gogithub.com/metakeule/fmtdate1.1.2indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-homedir1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/mapstructure1.3.3indirect
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-toml1.8.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflib1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/randall77/makefat0.0.0-20210315173500-7ddd0e42c844indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/afero1.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/afero1.3.4indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/cast1.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobra1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobra1.8.1indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/jwalterweatherman1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflag1.0.5indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/viper1.7.1indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.6.1indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.9.0indirect
Gogithub.com/tealeg/xlsx/v33.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/thediveo/enumflag/v22.0.7indirect
Gogitlab.com/metakeule/fmtdate1.2.2indirect
Gogolang.org/x/exp0.0.0-20250103183323-7d7fa50e5329indirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.0.0-20200822124328-c89045814202indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth20.0.0-20200107190931-bf48bf16ab8dindirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20200828194041-157a740278f4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.28.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.22.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/appengine1.6.6indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.26.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/ini.v11.60.2indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 49 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/net0.0.0-20200822124328-c89045814202indirecthigh3412.0.2
golang.org/x/oauth20.0.0-20200107190931-bf48bf16ab8dindirecthigh20.27.0
google.golang.org/protobuf1.26.0indirecthigh21.33.0
github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp0.7.0indirectmoderate20.7.7
golang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20200828194041-157a740278f4indirectmoderate31.18.2
golang.org/x/sys0.28.0indirectunknown10.44.0
golang.org/x/text0.22.0indirectunknown10.39.0

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.