Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 20:30 UTC

opensanctions / yente

API for OpenSanctions with support for entity search and bulk matching of data collections. Supports Reconciliation API spec.

PythonMIT★ 158 stars⑂ 63 forkssince Jan 2022View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryNetwork serviceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#opensanctions #sanctions #kyc #aml #ofac #sanction-lists

opensanctions/yente 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 (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

OpenSanctionsOrganization

228 followers34 public repossince May 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
PyPI	yente	5.5.0	-	46	27 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

97Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.2/36	Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 640 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	640
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	48

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 42 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 27 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~42.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	42
latest_release_tag	v5.5.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	27
mean_days_between_releases	42.6

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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

53Moderate

How it's scored

35.6/60	Stars — 158 stars
14.9/25	Forks — 63 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	63
stars	158
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 (MIT)
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	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
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)

44Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	16
top_contributor_share	0.507

Issue & PR responsiveness

51Moderate

How it's scored

29.1/42	Issue resolution — 69% of issues closed
15.4/30	PR acceptance — 555/1,081 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	555
open_issues	37
closed_issues	84
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.694
closed_unmerged_prs	526
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

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

Ownership & stewardship

86Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
17/25	Owner reach — 228 followers of opensanctions
21.5/25	Track record — 34 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	228
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	opensanctions
public_repos	34
account_age_days	1,876

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 27 days ago
20/20	Version history — 46 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	yente
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	27

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 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	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://yente.followthemoney.tech/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 6 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	opensanctions, sanctions, kyc, aml, ofac, sanction-lists
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://yente.followthemoney.tech/
docs_site	https://yente.followthemoney.tech/
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?

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

69Good

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 — 13 out of 13 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 1/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 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 13 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
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6.9

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

Dependency advisories

72Good

How it's scored

14/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: cryptography 48.0.0 (high 7.5)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	26
unassessed_packages	10
affected_by_severity	high 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 26 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 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.

75Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	285

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

86Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, contrib/validation_report/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — yente/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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	—
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile, contrib/validation_report/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	yente/py.typed
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (yente/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/75 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	17,852
source_files_sampled	75
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

158GitHub stars

16contributors

640commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

42releases

1bus factor

37open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-20 20:29 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	13 out of 13 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 1/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 7 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 13 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
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 30

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	elasticsearch	`== 9.4.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opensearch-py	`== 3.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	uvicorn	`== 0.49.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx	`== 0.28.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiohttp	`== 3.14.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	boto3	`~= 1.37`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fastapi	`== 0.136.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-multipart	`== 0.0.32`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	email-validator	`== 2.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	structlog	`== 26.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyicu	`== 2.16.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	anyio	`== 4.14.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	orjson	`== 3.11.9`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	text-unidecode	`== 1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click	`>= 8.2,< 8.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	normality	`== 3.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	countrynames	`== 1.17.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`== 48.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	followthemoney	`== 4.9.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fingerprints	`== 1.3.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	nomenklatura	`== 4.10.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rigour	`== 2.1.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	asyncstdlib	`== 3.14.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiocron	`== 2.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiocsv	`== 1.4.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiofiles	`== 25.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-distro	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-instrumentation-fastapi	`—`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 26 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	aiocron	`2.1`	direct
PyPI	aiocsv	`1.4.1`	direct
PyPI	aiofiles	`25.1.0`	direct
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.14.1`	direct
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.0`	direct
PyPI	asyncstdlib	`3.14.0`	direct
PyPI	boto3	`—`	direct
PyPI	click	`—`	direct
PyPI	countrynames	`1.17.0`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`48.0.0`	direct
PyPI	elasticsearch	`9.4.1`	direct
PyPI	email-validator	`2.3.0`	direct
PyPI	fastapi	`0.136.3`	direct
PyPI	fingerprints	`1.3.1`	direct
PyPI	followthemoney	`4.9.2`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	direct
PyPI	nomenklatura	`4.10.0`	direct
PyPI	normality	`3.1.0`	direct
PyPI	opensearch-py	`3.2.0`	direct
PyPI	orjson	`3.11.9`	direct
PyPI	pyicu	`2.16.2`	direct
PyPI	python-multipart	`0.0.32`	direct
PyPI	rigour	`2.1.2`	direct
PyPI	structlog	`26.1.0`	direct
PyPI	text-unidecode	`1.3`	direct
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.49.0`	direct
PyPI	boto3-stubs	`—`	indirect
PyPI	bump2version	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pip	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-httpx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-aiofiles	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 26 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
cryptography	`48.0.0`	direct	high	1	`48.0.1`

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 v0.16.0 — 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

More detail

Feedback

Related records