Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 01:34 UTC

ned-deily / cpython

The Python programming language

Python · CCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2017forkView on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

ned-deily/cpython holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (9/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. 11 contributors account for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ned DeilyPersonal account
174 followers8 public repossince Nov 2013

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

56Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 17 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence22/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,782 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,782
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases56 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 1,258 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~27.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count56
latest_release_tagv3.11.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1,258
mean_days_between_releases27.3
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?

9Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesdev.azure.com, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
54/54Bus factor11 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
20.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 10% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 49 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor11
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.104
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance0/44 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs44
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
16.1/25Owner reach174 followers of ned-deily
18.9/25Track record8 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers174
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginned-deily
public_repos8
account_age_days4,699
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows21 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.ruff.toml, Tools/peg_generator/pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.python.org/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.python.org/
docs_sitehttps://www.python.org/
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
4.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 49 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities44 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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
advisories6
affected_packages3
assessed_packages58
unassessed_packages5
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 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 58 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 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.

70Good · 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 history79 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.79
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapDoc/Makefile, Tools/freeze/test/Makefile, Tools/peg_generator/Makefile, Tools/unicode/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.ruff.toml, Tools/peg_generator/pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
11/11Static type checkingLib/_pyrepl/mypy.ini, Lib/test/libregrtest/mypy.ini, Lib/tomllib/mypy.ini, Tools/build/mypy.ini, Tools/cases_generator/mypy.ini, Tools/check-c-api-docs/mypy.ini, Tools/clinic/mypy.ini, Tools/jit/mypy.ini, Tools/peg_generator/mypy.ini
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesDoc/Makefile, Tools/freeze/test/Makefile, Tools/peg_generator/Makefile, Tools/unicode/Makefile
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsLib/_pyrepl/mypy.ini, Lib/test/libregrtest/mypy.ini, Lib/tomllib/mypy.ini, Tools/build/mypy.ini, Tools/cases_generator/mypy.ini, Tools/check-c-api-docs/mypy.ini, Tools/clinic/mypy.ini, Tools/jit/mypy.ini, Tools/peg_generator/mypy.ini
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsAndroid/testbed/app/build.gradle.kts, Android/testbed/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (Lib/_pyrepl/mypy.ini, Lib/test/libregrtest/mypy.ini, Lib/tomllib/mypy.ini, Tools/build/mypy.ini, Tools/cases_generator/mypy.ini, Tools/check-c-api-docs/mypy.ini, Tools/clinic/mypy.ini, Tools/jit/mypy.ini, Tools/peg_generator/mypy.ini)
50.1/55Manageable file sizes299/3,348 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes1,442,947
source_files_sampled3,348
oversized_source_files299
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
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

0GitHub stars
100contributors
1,782commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
56releases
11bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 01:34 UTC

6Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 49 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities44 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@playwright/test1.54.1indirect
npm@types/node24.1.0indirect
npmansi-styles4.3.0indirect
npmasync3.2.6indirect
npmbasic-auth2.0.1indirect
npmcall-bind-apply-helpers1.0.2indirect
npmcall-bound1.0.4indirect
npmchalk4.1.2indirect
npmcolor-convert2.0.1indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.4indirect
npmcorser2.0.1indirect
npmdebug4.4.1indirect
npmdunder-proto1.0.1indirect
npmes-define-property1.0.1indirect
npmes-errors1.3.0indirect
npmes-object-atoms1.1.1indirect
npmeventemitter34.0.7indirect
npmfollow-redirects1.15.9indirect
npmfsevents2.3.2indirect
npmfunction-bind1.1.2indirect
npmget-intrinsic1.3.0indirect
npmget-proto1.0.1indirect
npmgopd1.2.0indirect
npmhas-flag4.0.0indirect
npmhas-symbols1.1.0indirect
npmhasown2.0.2indirect
npmhe1.2.0indirect
npmhtml-encoding-sniffer3.0.0indirect
npmhttp-proxy1.18.1indirect
npmhttp-server14.1.1indirect
npmiconv-lite0.6.3indirect
npmmath-intrinsics1.1.0indirect
npmmime1.6.0indirect
npmminimist1.2.8indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmobject-inspect1.13.4indirect
npmopener1.5.2indirect
npmplaywright1.54.1indirect
npmplaywright-core1.54.1indirect
npmportfinder1.0.37indirect
npmqs6.14.0indirect
npmrequires-port1.0.0indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.1.2indirect
npmsafer-buffer2.1.2indirect
npmsecure-compare3.0.1indirect
npmside-channel1.1.0indirect
npmside-channel-list1.0.0indirect
npmside-channel-map1.0.1indirect
npmside-channel-weakmap1.0.2indirect
npmsupports-color7.2.0indirect
npmundici-types7.8.0indirect
npmunion0.5.0indirect
npmurl-join4.0.1indirect
npmwhatwg-encoding2.0.0indirect
PyPIblurbindirect
PyPIhypothesis6.135.26indirect
PyPImypy1.17.1indirect
PyPIpython-docs-themeindirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-pageindirect
PyPIsphinxext-opengraphindirect
PyPItypes-psutil7.0.0.20250801indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools80.9.0.20250801indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 58 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
playwright1.54.1indirecthigh11.55.1
follow-redirects1.15.9indirectmoderate11.16.0
qs6.14.0indirectmoderate46.16.0

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.