Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 14:56 UTC

nteract / papermill

📚 Parameterize, execute, and analyze notebooks

Python · Jupyter NotebookBSD-3-Clause★ 6,476 stars⑂ 462 forkssince Jul 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#jupyter #notebooks #notebook-generator #nteract #publishing #pipeline #notebook #python #julia #scala

nteract/papermill holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (94/100) and lowest on Vitality (45/100). It was last updated 51 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

nteractOrganization · verified domain

289 followers72 public repossince May 2015

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	papermill	2.7.0	15,154,969	76	180 days ago	jupyter mapreduce notebook nteract pipeline

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

45Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

34At Risk

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 51 days ago
3.5/36	Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18	Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	23
human_commit_share	0.82
days_since_last_push	51
active_weeks_last_year	5

Release discipline

62Moderate

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 70 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36	Release recency — latest release 180 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~215.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	70
latest_release_tag	2.7.0
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	180
mean_days_between_releases	215.8

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?

94Exceptional · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

93Exceptional

How it's scored

60/60	Stars — 6,476 stars
22.2/25	Forks — 462 forks
10.6/15	Watchers — 81 watchers

Inputs used

forks	462
stars	6,476
watchers	81
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	7
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io, snyk.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 15,154,969 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	papermill
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	15,154,969
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?

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 97 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 83 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	97
top_contributor_share	0.376

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good

How it's scored

27.4/42	Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed
26.7/30	PR acceptance — 375/422 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 16/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	375
open_issues	148
closed_issues	278
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.653
closed_unmerged_prs	47
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

93Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
17.7/25	Owner reach — 289 followers of nteract
25/25	Track record — 72 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	289
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	nteract
public_repos	72
account_age_days	4,125

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 180 days ago
20/20	Version history — 76 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	papermill
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	180

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://papermill.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 11 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	jupyter, notebooks, notebook-generator, nteract, publishing, pipeline, notebook, python, r, julia, scala
has_wiki	no
homepage	http://papermill.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
docs_site	http://papermill.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 23 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 16/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 83 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 38 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	27
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:papermill@2.7.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 27 packages. 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 68 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.829
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

63Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
4/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 17 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.02
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.17

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/37 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	22,992
source_files_sampled	37
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — notebooks

Inputs used

example_dirs	notebooks
has_mcp_signal	no
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

6,476GitHub stars

97contributors

23commits, last 12 months

51days since last push

70releases

2bus factor

148open 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 ★ / 462 ⇿

0Stars

462Forks

70Releases

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.

Major 2Minor 20Patch 48

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10

4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 14:56 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
8	CI-Tests	23 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 16/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10	Contributors	project has 83 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	38 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	aiohttp	`>=3.9`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	entrypoints	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	nbclient	`>=0.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	nbformat	`>=5.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tenacity	`>=5.0.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tqdm	`>=4.32.2`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	aiohttp	`—`	direct
PyPI	click	`—`	direct
PyPI	entrypoints	`—`	direct
PyPI	nbclient	`—`	direct
PyPI	nbformat	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	direct
PyPI	requests	`—`	direct
PyPI	tenacity	`—`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`—`	direct
PyPI	attrs	`—`	indirect
PyPI	azure-datalake-store	`—`	indirect
PyPI	azure-identity	`—`	indirect
PyPI	azure-storage-blob	`—`	indirect
PyPI	boto3	`—`	indirect
PyPI	botocore	`—`	indirect
PyPI	bumpversion	`—`	indirect
PyPI	check-manifest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	codecov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`—`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`—`	indirect
PyPI	gcsfs	`—`	indirect
PyPI	google-compute-engine	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ipykernel	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ipython	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ipywidgets	`—`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib	`—`	indirect
PyPI	moto	`—`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`—`	indirect
PyPI	notebook	`—`	indirect
PyPI	nteract-scrapbook	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pip	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyarrow	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pygithub	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-env	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`—`	indirect
PyPI	recommonmark	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-copybutton	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`—`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`—`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:papermill@2.7.0 pulls in 27 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records