Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 22:48 UTC

observatorycontrolsystem / science-archive

Science archive for astronomical data

PythonGPL-3.0★ 2 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Oct 2018View on GitHub ↗

KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

observatorycontrolsystem/science-archive holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (26/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Observatory Control SystemOrganization

33 followers20 public repossince Apr 2020

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?

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
10.4/36	Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
16.4/18	Commit volume — 66 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	66
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	15

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~46.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	18
latest_release_tag	v2.7.9
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	8
mean_days_between_releases	46.8

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?

26At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

5Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 2 stars
2.5/25	Forks — 3 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	3
stars	2
watchers	4
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	app.codacy.com, coveralls.io, github.com
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	12
top_contributor_share	0.497

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.2/30	PR acceptance — 84/96 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	84
open_issues	0
closed_issues	1
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	4
prs_decided_30d	4
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	12
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
11/25	Owner reach — 33 followers of observatorycontrolsystem
21.6/25	Track record — 20 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	33
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	observatorycontrolsystem
public_repos	20
account_age_days	2,337

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

58Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
10/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 4 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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 — 23 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.9

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

Dependency advisories

47Weak

How it's scored

9.4/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 4 affected: markdown 3.0.1 (high 7.5), urllib3 1.26.20 (high 7.5), django 6.0.5 (moderate 6.5), +1 more
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
26/40	No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 455 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	45
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	63
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 3, moderate 3
direct_affected_packages	4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 63 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.

30At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

15Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.9/40	Legible commit history — 28 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.28
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

32At Risk

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	yes
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/76 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	61,493
source_files_sampled	76
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

2GitHub stars

12contributors

66commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

18releases

2bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch pypi package 'science-archive' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿

0Stars

3Forks

1Releases

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 0Minor 0Patch 1

Each point covers 2 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 · 2026-09-16 22:48 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5	CI-Tests	5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 4 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
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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	23 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 23

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	django	`^6`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psycopg	`^3.3.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	django-filter	`^25.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	djangorestframework	`^3.17`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	PyYAML	`^6.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	boto3	`<2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	astropy	`>=7,<9.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Markdown	`>=3.0,<3.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	gunicorn	`^26.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	django-cors-headers	`^4.9.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	drf-yasg	`^1.21`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python3-memcached	`>=1.51,<2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	uritemplate	`3.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	kombu	`^5.6.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ocs-authentication	`>=0.2.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	setuptools-scm	`^10.0.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`^2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	django-extensions	`^4.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	lcogt-logging	`^0.3.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	django-redis	`^6.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ocs_archive	`>=0.5.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`<2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	anyascii	`^0.3.3`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 23 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	anyascii	`0.3.3`	direct
PyPI	astropy	`7.2.0`	direct
PyPI	boto3	`1.43.13`	direct
PyPI	django	`6.0.5`	direct
PyPI	django-cors-headers	`4.9.0`	direct
PyPI	django-extensions	`4.1`	direct
PyPI	django-filter	`25.2`	direct
PyPI	django-redis	`6.0.0`	direct
PyPI	djangorestframework	`3.17.1`	direct
PyPI	drf-yasg	`1.21.15`	direct
PyPI	gunicorn	`26.0.0`	direct
PyPI	kombu	`5.6.2`	direct
PyPI	lcogt-logging	`0.3.2`	direct
PyPI	markdown	`3.0.1`	direct
PyPI	ocs-archive	`0.5.0`	direct
PyPI	ocs-authentication	`0.2.4`	direct
PyPI	psycopg	`3.3.4`	direct
PyPI	python3-memcached	`1.51`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	setuptools-scm	`10.0.5`	direct
PyPI	uritemplate	`3.0.1`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`1.26.20`	direct
PyPI	amqp	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	asgiref	`3.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	astropy-iers-data	`0.2026.5.18.1.11.28`	indirect
PyPI	botocore	`1.43.13`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.5.20`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`6.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	coveralls	`3.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	docopt	`0.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	factory-boy	`3.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	faker	`40.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`5.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	gevent	`26.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.16`	indirect
PyPI	inflection	`0.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	jmespath	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	psycopg-c	`3.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyerfa	`2.0.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`2.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2026.2`	indirect
PyPI	redis	`7.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	responses	`0.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	s3transfer	`0.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlparse	`0.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.2`	indirect
PyPI	vcs-versioning	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	vine	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	zope-event	`6.2`	indirect
PyPI	zope-interface	`8.4`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 63 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 4 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
markdown	`3.0.1`	direct	high	2	`3.8.1`
urllib3	`1.26.20`	direct	high	10	`2.7.0`
sqlparse	`0.5.5`	indirect	high	10	`0.6.0`
django	`6.0.5`	direct	moderate	17	`6.0.8`
djangorestframework	`3.17.1`	direct	moderate	4	`3.17.2`
setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`83.0.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records