Public recordWeak
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 13:23 UTC
peepdb-dev / peepdb
CLI tool and python library to inspect databases fast.
peepdb-dev/peepdb holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (28/100). It was last updated 406 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
48
overall / 100Software 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.
48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Evangelos MeklisPersonal account
37 followers15 public repossince Nov 2019Nokia
This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | peepdb | 0.1.4 | - | 3 | 654 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
28
Development activity
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/36 | Push recency — last push 406 days ago |
| 0/36 | Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits |
| 0/18 | Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 0 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 406 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 0 |
Release discipline
68Good
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 4 releases published |
| 7.2/36 | Release recency — latest release 654 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~7 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 4 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.1.4 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 654 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 7 |
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?
64
Popularity & adoption
59Moderate
How it's scored
| 43.7/60 | Stars — 495 stars |
| 10.7/25 | Forks — 20 forks |
| 4.7/15 | Watchers — 8 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 20 |
| stars | 495 |
| watchers | 8 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
70Good
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (GPL-3.0) |
| 18/18 | 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 | yes |
| 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?
53
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
28At Risk
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 3.2/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits |
| 9.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 7 contributors |
| 6/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 7 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.857 |
How it's scored
| 31/42 | Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed |
| 25.2/30 | PR acceptance — 26/31 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 4.5/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 26 |
| open_issues | 10 |
| closed_issues | 28 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.737 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 5 |
| 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
53Moderate
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 11.4/25 | Owner reach — 37 followers of evangelosmeklis |
| 20.8/25 | Track record — 15 public repos, account ~6 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 37 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | evangelosmeklis |
| public_repos | 15 |
| account_age_days | 2,442 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
71Good
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi |
| 14/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 654 days ago |
| 12/20 | Version history — 3 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | peepdb |
| ecosystems | pypi |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 654 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
71
Engineering practices
52Moderate
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 2 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 4/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.peepdb.dev/ |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 12 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | database-management, python3, sql, cli, python, open-source, backend-as-a-service, database-as-a-service, developer-tools, nosql, serverless, daatabase |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://docs.peepdb.dev/ |
| docs_site | https://docs.peepdb.dev/ |
| 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?
31
Security posture
31At Risk
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0.8/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 0.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 4 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 2.2/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 10/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |
| 1.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 0/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 41 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 3.1 |
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.
28
Agent context & guidance
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 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 | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no data |
| 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 | Gemfile.lock |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Code legibility for models
55Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/24 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | 7,565 |
| source_files_sampled | 24 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Key facts
495GitHub stars
7contributors
0commits, last 12 months
406days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
10open issues
PyPI, RubyGemspackage ecosystems
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 1 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2 | CI-Tests | 4 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 3 | Code-Review | Found 10/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |
| 6 | Contributors | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 0 | Maintained | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 0 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 41 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 2
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| RubyGems | jekyll | ~> 4.3.3 | docs/Gemfile |
| RubyGems | just-the-docs | 0.9.0 | docs/Gemfile |
All dependencies 107
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 105 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| RubyGems | jekyll | 4.3.3 | direct |
| RubyGems | just-the-docs | 0.9.0 | direct |
| PyPI | async-timeout | 4.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | backports-tarfile | 1.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | cachecontrol | 0.14.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | cachetools | — | indirect |
| PyPI | cachetools | 5.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | certifi | 2024.8.30 | indirect |
| PyPI | cffi | 1.17.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 3.3.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | click | — | indirect |
| PyPI | click | 8.1.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | coverage | 7.6.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | cryptography | — | indirect |
| PyPI | cryptography | 43.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | dnspython | 2.6.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | exceptiongroup | 1.2.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | firebase-admin | 6.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-api-core | 2.20.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-api-python-client | 2.147.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-auth | 2.35.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-auth-httplib2 | 0.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-cloud-core | 2.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-cloud-firestore | 2.19.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-cloud-storage | 2.18.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-crc32c | 1.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-resumable-media | 2.7.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | googleapis-common-protos | 1.65.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | grpcio | 1.66.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | grpcio-status | 1.66.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | httplib2 | 0.22.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | idna | 3.10 | indirect |
| PyPI | importlib-metadata | 8.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | iniconfig | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | jaraco-classes | 3.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | jaraco-context | 6.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | jaraco-functools | 4.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | keyring | — | indirect |
| PyPI | keyring | 25.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | mariadb | — | indirect |
| PyPI | mariadb | 1.1.10 | indirect |
| PyPI | more-itertools | 10.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | msgpack | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | mysql-connector-python | — | indirect |
| PyPI | mysql-connector-python | 9.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | oracledb | 2.5.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | packaging | 24.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pluggy | 1.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | proto-plus | 1.24.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | protobuf | 5.28.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | psycopg2-binary | — | indirect |
| PyPI | psycopg2-binary | 2.9.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyasn1 | 0.6.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyasn1-modules | 0.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pycparser | 2.22 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyjwt | 2.9.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pymongo | 4.9.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pymysql | — | indirect |
| PyPI | pymysql | 1.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyodbc | 5.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyparsing | 3.1.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | 8.3.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-cov | 5.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | redis | 5.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests | 2.32.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | rsa | 4.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | tabulate | — | indirect |
| PyPI | tabulate | 0.8.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | tomli | 2.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | uritemplate | 4.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.2.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | zipp | 3.20.2 | indirect |
| RubyGems | addressable | 2.8.7 | indirect |
| RubyGems | bigdecimal | 3.1.8 | indirect |
| RubyGems | colorator | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | concurrent-ruby | 1.3.4 | indirect |
| RubyGems | em-websocket | 0.5.3 | indirect |
| RubyGems | eventmachine | 1.2.7 | indirect |
| RubyGems | ffi | 1.17.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | ffi | 1.17.0-x86_64-linux-gnu | indirect |
| RubyGems | forwardable-extended | 2.6.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | google-protobuf | 4.27.3 | indirect |
| RubyGems | http_parser.rb | 0.8.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | i18n | 1.14.5 | indirect |
| RubyGems | jekyll-include-cache | 0.2.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | jekyll-sass-converter | 3.0.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | jekyll-seo-tag | 2.8.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | jekyll-watch | 2.2.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | kramdown | 2.4.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | kramdown-parser-gfm | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | liquid | 4.0.4 | indirect |
| RubyGems | listen | 3.9.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | mercenary | 0.4.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | pathutil | 0.16.2 | indirect |
| RubyGems | public_suffix | 6.0.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rake | 13.2.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rb-fsevent | 0.11.2 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rb-inotify | 0.11.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rexml | 3.3.5 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rouge | 4.3.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | safe_yaml | 1.0.5 | indirect |
| RubyGems | sass-embedded | 1.77.8 | indirect |
| RubyGems | sass-embedded | 1.77.8-x86_64-linux-gnu | indirect |
| RubyGems | strscan | 3.1.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | terminal-table | 3.0.2 | indirect |
| RubyGems | unicode-display_width | 2.5.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | webrick | 1.8.1 | indirect |
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.