Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 20:52 UTC

omnilib / aioitertools

itertools and builtins for AsyncIO and mixed iterables

PythonMIT★ 277 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Jun 2018View on GitHub ↗

omnilib/aioitertools holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (82/100) and lowest on Vitality (33/100). It was last updated 156 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
overall / 100
Good

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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

85 followers12 public repossince Apr 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIaioitertools0.13.0102,435,77920270 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

33At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 156 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume16 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share0.54
days_since_last_push156
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases18 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 270 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~226.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv0.13.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release270
mean_days_between_releases226.5
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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.6/60Stars277 stars
11.8/25Forks27 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars277
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

100Exceptional
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesreadthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads102,435,779 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesaioitertools
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads102,435,779
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 75% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.753
How it's scored
36.3/42Issue resolution86% of issues closed
17.3/30PR acceptance115/199 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs115
open_issues3
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.864
closed_unmerged_prs84
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
13.9/25Owner reach85 followers of omnilib
20.1/25Track record12 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers85
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginomnilib
public_repos12
account_age_days2,290
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 270 days ago
20/20Version history20 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaioitertools
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish270

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests12 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://aioitertools.omnilib.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, python3, asyncio, itertools, hacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://aioitertools.omnilib.dev
docs_sitehttps://aioitertools.omnilib.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1/2.5CI-Tests12 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.7/40Legible commit history26 of 54 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.481
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapmakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingaioitertools/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance46 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesmakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsaioitertools/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.46
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (aioitertools/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/16 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes23,023
source_files_sampled16
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

277GitHub stars
18contributors
16commits, last 12 months
156days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 27 ⇿
0Stars
27Forks
16Releases

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.

0510152025302712018-122022-082026-03
Major 0Minor 11Patch 5

Each point covers 7 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 · 2026-08-04 20:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4CI-Tests12 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 1

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPItyping-extensionsdirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.