Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 06:12 UTC

oOo0oOo / lean-lsp-mcp

Lean Theorem Prover MCP

PythonMIT★ 530 stars⑂ 84 forkssince Mar 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolMCP serverLibraryhow this is determined
#lean4#lsp#mcp

oOo0oOo/lean-lsp-mcp holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Oliver DresslerPersonal account
50 followers46 public repossince Aug 2012

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 publish
PyPIlean-lsp-mcp0.31.0730,4248218 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

82Excellent
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 18 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 533 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year533
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year37

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 18 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~24.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv0.31.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release18
mean_days_between_releases24.9
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?

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

66Good
How it's scored
44.2/60Stars — 530 stars
16/25Forks — 84 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks84
stars530
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional
How it's scored
78.2/80Monthly downloads — 730,424 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslean-lsp-mcp
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads730,424
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 25 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled25
top_contributor_share0.715

Issue & PR responsiveness

69Good
How it's scored
40.8/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
19.4/30PR acceptance — 99/153 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs99
open_issues2
closed_issues70
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.972
closed_unmerged_prs54
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.

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.3/25Owner reach — 50 followers of oOo0oOo
24.2/25Track record — 46 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers50
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginoOo0oOo
public_repos46
account_age_days5,189
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 18 days ago
20/20Version history — 82 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslean-lsp-mcp
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish18

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslean4, lsp, mcp
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 19 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

79Good
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: mcp 2.0.0 (high 7.5)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages42
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the pypi:lean-lsp-mcp@0.31.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 42 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt)
37.9/40Legible commit history — 71 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.71
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
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 — Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 18 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.18
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/81 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes45,541
source_files_sampled81
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

530GitHub stars
25contributors
533commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 84 ⇿
0Stars
84Forks
30Releases

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.

0204060801008432025-052026-012026-10
Major 0Minor 26Patch 4

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 06:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 4 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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities19 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIleanclient>=0.13.2pyproject.toml
PyPImcp==2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIorjson>=3.11.9pyproject.toml
PyPIcertifi>=2026.7.22pyproject.toml
All dependencies 59

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 55 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22direct
PyPIleanclient0.13.2direct
PyPImcp2.0.0direct
PyPIorjson3.11.9direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography49.0.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.10.0indirect
PyPIhttpx22.10.0indirect
PyPIhttpx2-jsfetch1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIlean-lsp-mcp0.31.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImcp-types2.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.44.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32312indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIruff0.15.20indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.4.6indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.0indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPIty0.0.64indirect
PyPItyper0.27.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.51.0indirect
PyPIwatchfiles1.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:lean-lsp-mcp@0.31.0 pulls in 42 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
mcp2.0.0directhigh12.2.0

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with oOo0oOo/lean-lsp-mcp. Read them side by side →

93likec4/likec4Visualize, collaborate, and evolve the software architecture with always actual and live diagrams from your codeExceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional99open-metadata/OpenMetadataThe Open Context Layer for Data and AI , OpenMetadata is the open platform for building trusted data context and business semantics for humans, AI assistants, and agents.Exceptional99ag2ai/ag2AG2 (formerly AutoGen): The Open-Source AgentOS.Join us at: https://discord.gg/sNGSwQME3xExceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99awslabs/mcpOpen source MCP Servers for AWSExceptional

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.