Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 01:25 UTC

ocrmypdf / OCRmyPDF

OCRmyPDF adds an OCR text layer to scanned PDF files, allowing them to be searched

PythonMPL-2.0★ 34,358 stars⑂ 2,373 forkssince Dec 2013View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#python #ocr #pdf #image-processing #tesseract

ocrmypdf/OCRmyPDF holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts 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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ocrmypdfOrganization

218 followers4 public repossince Dec 2021

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	ocrmypdf	17.10.0	-	266	0 days ago	ocr pdf pdf-a optical-character-recognition scanning

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

95Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.2/36	Commit cadence — 45/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 406 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	406
human_commit_share	0.88
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	45

Release discipline

91Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 62 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~2 days
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 1 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	62
latest_release_tag	v17.10.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	2

Community & Adoption

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

85Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

98Exceptional

How it's scored

60/60	Stars — 34,358 stars
25/25	Forks — 2,373 forks
12.7/15	Watchers — 190 watchers

Inputs used

forks	2,373
stars	34,358
watchers	190
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MPL-2.0)
18/18	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	1
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	99
top_contributor_share	0.828

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good

How it's scored

39.1/42	Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
22.4/30	PR acceptance — 202/271 decided PRs merged
6.5/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	202
open_issues	92
closed_issues	1,266
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.932
closed_unmerged_prs	69
first_time_authors_30d	2
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	2

Ownership & stewardship

76Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
16.8/25	Owner reach — 218 followers of ocrmypdf
14.4/25	Track record — 4 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	218
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	ocrmypdf
public_repos	4
account_age_days	1,696

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 266 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	ocrmypdf
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

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
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://ocrmypdf.readthedocs.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	python, ocr, pdf, image-processing, tesseract
has_wiki	yes
homepage	http://ocrmypdf.readthedocs.io/
docs_site	http://ocrmypdf.readthedocs.io/
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?

63Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 18 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 16 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
0.8/7.5	Signed-Releases — 1 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	2
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	145
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 145 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

36Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.4/40	Legible commit history — 60 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.682
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — src/ocrmypdf/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 12 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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	src/ocrmypdf/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.12

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/ocrmypdf/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/158 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	51,758
source_files_sampled	158
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

34,358GitHub stars

99contributors

406commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

62releases

1bus factor

92open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:ocrmypdf@17.10.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2,373 ⇿

0Stars

2,373Forks

23Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Major 1Minor 11Patch 10

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10

5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 01:25 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
10	CI-Tests	5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 18 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 16 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
1	Signed-Releases	1 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 13

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	fpdf2	`>=2.8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	img2pdf	`>=0.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	packaging	`>=20`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pdfminer.six	`>=20260107`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pi-heif	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pikepdf	`>=10`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Pillow	`>=10.0.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pluggy	`>=1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`>=2.12.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pypdfium2	`>=5.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`>=13`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`>=4.12`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	uharfbuzz	`>=0.53.2`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 145

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 132 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	fpdf2	`2.8.7`	direct
PyPI	img2pdf	`0.6.3`	direct
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	direct
PyPI	pdfminer-six	`20260107`	direct
PyPI	pi-heif	`1.4.0`	direct
PyPI	pikepdf	`10.10.0`	direct
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	direct
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.4`	direct
PyPI	pypdfium2	`5.12.1`	direct
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	uharfbuzz	`0.55.0`	direct
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	altair	`6.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	appnope	`0.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	asttokens	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	blinker	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	comm	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.2`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`49.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	cyclopts	`4.22.3`	indirect
PyPI	debugpy	`1.8.21`	indirect
PyPI	decorator	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	docstring-parser	`0.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	executing	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	fonttools	`4.63.0`	indirect
PyPI	gitdb	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	gitpython	`3.1.57`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httptools	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	hypothesis	`6.164.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipykernel	`7.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipython	`9.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipython-pygments-lexers	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	itsdangerous	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	jedi	`0.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-client	`8.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	jupyter-core	`5.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib-inline	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`5.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	narwhals	`2.24.0`	indirect
PyPI	nest-asyncio2	`1.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	ocrmypdf	`17.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`3.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	parso	`0.8.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pexpect	`4.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	prek	`0.4.11`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.53`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`7.35.1`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`7.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	ptyprocess	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	pure-eval	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyarrow	`24.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.4`	indirect
PyPI	pydeck	`0.9.3`	indirect
PyPI	pygithub	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymupdf	`1.28.0`	indirect
PyPI	pynacl	`1.6.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	python-multipart	`0.0.32`	indirect
PyPI	python-xmp-toolkit	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2026.3.post1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyzmq	`27.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	reportlab	`5.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	rich-rst	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`2026.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	smmap	`5.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-issues	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-reredirects	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rtd-theme	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jquery	`4.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-mermaid	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	stack-data	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit	`1.60.0`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-pdf-viewer	`0.0.30`	indirect
PyPI	tenacity	`9.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	toml	`0.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tornado	`6.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	traitlets	`5.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	types-humanfriendly	`10.0.1.20250319`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.52.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchfiles	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`16.1.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 145 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
cryptography	`49.0.0`	indirect	moderate	2	`50.0.0`

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 v0.31.0 — 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