# passagemath/passagemath — health index 73/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository passagemath/passagemath by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/passagemath/passagemath
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/passagemath/passagemath
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/passagemath/passagemath/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/p/passagemath/passagemath.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-17
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 99/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 82/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 74/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 33/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 56/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | General purpose mathematical software system, compatible fork of https://github.com/sagemath/sage supporting modularized installation with pip. Main repository, containing Sage library (src/), modularized pip-installable packages (pkgs/), Sage distribution (build/). Source repo for most packages in https://pypi.org/org/passagemath/ |
| Homepage | https://passagemath.discourse.group/ |
| Primary language | Python |
| Stars | 101 |
| Forks | 32 |
| Created | 2024-10-14 |
| Last push | 2026-07-16 |
| Latest release | passagemath-10.8.6 |
| Commits (last year) | 6,223 |
| Bus factor | 9 |
| Topics | computer-algebra-system, mathematics |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | sagemath | 10.9 | — |

## Vitality — 99/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 35.3 / 36 | 51/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 6223 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 2 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~7.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 64/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 45/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 32.4 / 60 | 101 stars |
| Forks | partial | 12.4 / 25 | 32 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 2 watchers |

### Community health — 86/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 82/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 94/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 9 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 17.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 24% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 79/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 30 / 46.8 | 64% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 37.5 / 38.2 | 1970/2011 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 58/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 11.2 / 25 | 35 followers of passagemath |
| Track record | partial | 16.5 / 25 | 259 public repos, account ~1 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 73 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 45 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 74/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 25 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | tox.ini |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 65/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://passagemath.discourse.group/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 2 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 33/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 33/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 56/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 96/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, pkgs/sage-conf_pypi/sage_root/Makefile, src/doc/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | tox.ini |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | pyrightconfig.json, src/mypy.ini |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json, src/mypy.ini) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 49.4 / 55 | 363/3584 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt