Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 17:15 UTC

pex-tool / pex

A tool for generating .pex (Python EXecutable) files, lock files and venvs.

PythonApache-2.0★ 4,223 stars⑂ 318 forkssince Jul 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

pex-tool/pex holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Security (31/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PexOrganization
21 followers12 public repossince Feb 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIpex2.101.05,563,8944981 day agopackageexecutablevirtualenvlockfreeze

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume244 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year244
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year49
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~2.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.101.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases2.9

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

85Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
58.8/60Stars4,223 stars
20.8/25Forks318 forks
9.4/15Watchers50 watchers
Inputs used
forks318
stars4,223
watchers50
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads5,563,894 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespex
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads5,563,894
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.721
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance1,587/1,741 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,587
open_issues55
closed_issues1,193
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.956
closed_unmerged_prs154
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.7/25Owner reach21 followers of pex-tool
13.2/25Track record12 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers21
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginpex-tool
public_repos12
account_age_days932

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history498 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespex
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.pex-tool.org/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://docs.pex-tool.org/
docs_sitehttps://docs.pex-tool.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities74 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3.1

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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history78 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.78
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.black], [tool.isort])
11/11Static type checkingmypy.ini, pex/vendor/_vendored/attrs/attr/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/attrs/attrs/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_20_9/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_21_3/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_24_0/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_26_2/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_26_3/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/tomli/tomli/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, pex/vendor/_vendored/attrs/attr/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/attrs/attrs/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_20_9/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_21_3/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_24_0/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_26_2/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_26_3/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/tomli/tomli/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (mypy.ini, pex/vendor/_vendored/attrs/attr/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/attrs/attrs/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_20_9/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_21_3/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_24_0/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_26_2/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/packaging_26_3/packaging/py.typed, pex/vendor/_vendored/tomli/tomli/py.typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes7/616 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes104,904
source_files_sampled616
oversized_source_files7

Key facts

4,223GitHub stars
100contributors
244commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
55open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 318 ⇿
0Stars
318Forks
96Releases

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.

0125250375313142014-072020-082026-08
Major 0Minor 33Patch 63

Each point covers 12 days.

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).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-27 17:15 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities74 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 statisticsPyPI.