Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 02:16 UTC

oemof / tespy

Thermal Engineering Systems in Python (TESPy). This package provides a powerful simulation toolkit for thermodynamic modeling of thermal engineering plants such as power plants, heat pumps or refrigeration machines.

PythonMIT★ 412 stars⑂ 138 forkssince Dec 2017View on GitHub ↗

oemof/tespy holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

oemof communityOrganization
205 followers20 public repossince Aug 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPItespy0.11.29,6501152 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,412 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 21 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,412
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year49

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 73 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~19.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count73
latest_release_tagv0.11.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases19.3
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?

76Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.4/60Stars — 412 stars
17.8/25Forks — 138 forks
7.9/15Watchers — 27 watchers
Inputs used
forks138
stars412
watchers27
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
53.1/80Monthly downloads — 9,650 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestespy
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads9,650
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 91% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 36 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled36
top_contributor_share0.912
How it's scored
37/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 430/466 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs430
open_issues47
closed_issues347
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d11
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.881
closed_unmerged_prs36
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16.6/25Owner reach — 205 followers of oemof
21.6/25Track record — 20 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers205
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginoemof
public_repos20
account_age_days4,399

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 115 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestespy
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.isort]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://tespy.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 12 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsthermodynamics, process-engineering, cooling, heating, energy-system, powerplant, python, simulation, exergy, refrigeration, thermodynamic-cycles, heat-pump
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://tespy.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://tespy.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 21 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
3/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages25
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:tespy@0.11.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 25 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.9/40Legible commit history — 11 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.111
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.isort]), tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 14 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.14
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.7/55Manageable file sizes — 4/173 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes138,491
source_files_sampled173
oversized_source_files4
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

412GitHub stars
36contributors
1,412commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
73releases
1bus factor
47open 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 ★ / 138 ⇿
0Stars
138Forks
72Releases

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.

025507510012515013642018-042022-062026-09
Major 0Minor 10Patch 50

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-06 02:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
7CI-Tests3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 21 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
6SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPICoolProp>=6.8pyproject.toml
PyPIfluprodia>=4.1.2pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2—pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=3.2.1pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.13.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=1.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpint—pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy—pyproject.toml
PyPItabulate>=0.8.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcoolprop—direct
PyPIfluprodia—direct
PyPImatplotlib—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPItabulate—direct
PyPIflit-core—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-page—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-bibtex—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:tespy@0.11.2 pulls in 25 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.

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 — PyPI.