Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-15 17:04 UTC

openreview / openreview-py

Official Python client library for the OpenReview API

PythonMIT★ 270 stars⑂ 41 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

openreview/openreview-py holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (61/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OpenReviewOrganization
146 followers12 public repossince Jun 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIopenreview-py2.9.058,1202600 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 356 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year356
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year48

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.9.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases6.3
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.4/60Stars — 270 stars
13.4/25Forks — 41 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks41
stars270
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com, codecov.io, readthedocs.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63.5/80Monthly downloads — 58,120 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesopenreview-py
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads58,120
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 41% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.411
How it's scored
26.3/42Issue resolution — 63% of issues closed
28/30PR acceptance — 2,234/2,396 decided PRs merged
2.6/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs2,234
open_issues320
closed_issues535
prs_merged_7d13
prs_decided_7d17
prs_merged_30d51
prs_decided_30d58
issue_closed_ratio0.626
closed_unmerged_prs162
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.6/25Owner reach — 146 followers of openreview
20.1/25Track record — 12 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers146
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginopenreview
public_repos12
account_age_days4,869

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 260 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopenreview-py
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 30 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 site — https://openreview-py.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, api-client, openreview, hacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://openreview-py.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
docs_sitehttps://openreview-py.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

75Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 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 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories10
affected_packages3
assessed_packages83
unassessed_packages22
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 83 resolved dependencies against OSV. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.openreview.net/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 93 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.openreview.net/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.969
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,041
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.09
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
50.5/55Manageable file sizes — 35/431 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes494,567
source_files_sampled431
oversized_source_files35

Key facts

270GitHub stars
30contributors
356commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
320open 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:openreview-py@2.9.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 41 ⇿
0Stars
41Forks
97Releases

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.

010203040504122018-072022-082026-10
Major 1Minor 29Patch 67

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-15 17:03 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
4CI-Tests13 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 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 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
8Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpycryptodome>=3.20,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.32,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIurllib3>=2,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIfuture>=1.0.0,<2pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm>=4.60,<5pyproject.toml
PyPIDeprecated>=1.2.0,<2pyproject.toml
PyPIpylatexenc>=2.10,<3pyproject.toml
PyPItld>=0.12,<1pyproject.toml
PyPIpyjwt>=2.0,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIeditdistance>=0.8.1,<1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 105

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 86 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdeprecated—direct
PyPIdeprecated1.3.1direct
PyPIeditdistance—direct
PyPIfuture—direct
PyPIfuture1.0.0direct
PyPIpycryptodome—direct
PyPIpycryptodome3.23.0direct
PyPIpyjwt—direct
PyPIpyjwt2.15.0direct
PyPIpylatexenc—direct
PyPIpylatexenc2.10direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIrequests2.33.0direct
PyPItld—direct
PyPItld0.13.2direct
PyPItqdm—direct
PyPItqdm4.67.3direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIurllib32.8.0direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIbleach6.3.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIfastjsonschema2.21.2indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIjupyter-client8.8.0indirect
PyPIjupyter-core5.9.1indirect
PyPIjupyterlab-pygments0.3.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImistune3.3.3indirect
PyPInbclient0.10.4indirect
PyPInbconvert7.17.1indirect
PyPInbformat—indirect
PyPInbformat5.10.4indirect
PyPInbsphinx—indirect
PyPInbsphinx0.9.8indirect
PyPIoutcome1.3.0.post0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpandocfilters1.5.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.4indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpy—indirect
PyPIpy1.11.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyotp—indirect
PyPIpyotp2.9.0indirect
PyPIpysocks1.7.1indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-base-url2.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-html4.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest-metadata3.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-selenium—indirect
PyPIpytest-selenium4.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-variables3.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyzmq27.1.0indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIselenium—indirect
PyPIselenium4.41.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItenacity9.1.4indirect
PyPItinycss21.4.0indirect
PyPItornado6.5.8indirect
PyPItraitlets5.14.3indirect
PyPItrio0.33.0indirect
PyPItrio-websocket0.12.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIwebencodings0.5.1indirect
PyPIwebsocket-client1.9.0indirect
PyPIwheel—indirect
PyPIwrapt2.1.2indirect
PyPIwsproto1.3.2indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 83 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
tornado6.5.8indirecthigh36.5.9
bleach6.3.0indirectmoderate36.4.0
soupsieve2.8.4indirectmoderate42.9.0

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.

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.