Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-07 22:25 UTC

phoenixthrush / AniWorld-Downloader

AniWorld Downloader is a free, open-source app for finding and downloading anime, movies, series, and manga, with video streaming support. Available on Windows, macOS, and Linux, with a Web UI, terminal menu, CLI, and Docker support. If you enjoy using it, feel free to leave a ⭐!

PythonMIT★ 331 stars⑂ 57 forkssince Apr 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

phoenixthrush/AniWorld-Downloader holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Good

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

Ownership

luluPersonal account

67 followers104 public repossince Nov 2018

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	aniworld	5.3.0	2,148	104	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

87Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36	Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 588 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	588
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	33

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~6.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v.5.3.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	6.4

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

60Moderate

How it's scored

40.9/60	Stars — 331 stars
14.6/25	Forks — 57 forks
4.7/15	Watchers — 8 watchers

Inputs used

forks	57
stars	331
watchers	8
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	7
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

56Moderate

How it's scored

44.4/80	Monthly downloads — 2,148 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	aniworld
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,148
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	16
top_contributor_share	0.553

Issue & PR responsiveness

60Moderate

How it's scored

40.7/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
19.3/30	PR acceptance — 85/132 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	85
open_issues	6
closed_issues	194
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	5
prs_decided_30d	11
issue_closed_ratio	0.97
closed_unmerged_prs	47
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.2/25	Owner reach — 67 followers of phoenixthrush
25/25	Track record — 104 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	67
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	phoenixthrush
public_repos	104
account_age_days	2,892

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 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 104 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	aniworld
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — ruff.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 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	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/aniworld/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 20 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	anime-downloader, anime-scraper, anime-streaming, aniworld-downloader, aniworld-to, burningseries, cli-tool, filmpalast, hanime-api, hentaihaven, hentaihaven-downloader, mangafire-api, mangafireto, moflix, mpv-player, python3, serienstream-downloader, tui-app, voesx, webscraper
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://pypi.org/project/aniworld/
docs_site	https://pypi.org/project/aniworld/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 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 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 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
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
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	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	4.3

Dependency advisories

64Moderate

How it's scored

14/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: certifi 2024.2.2 (high 7.5)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 824 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	58
affected_packages	8
assessed_packages	21
unassessed_packages	13
affected_by_severity	high 6, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 21 resolved dependencies against OSV. 13 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

26At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.1/40	Legible commit history — 49 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.49
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — ruff.toml
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/237 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	67,910
source_files_sampled	237
oversized_source_files	1

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

331GitHub stars

16contributors

588commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

6open 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:aniworld@5.3.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 57 ⇿

0Stars

57Forks

85Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10

4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-07 22:25 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	1 out of 1 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 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 25 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
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 13

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	certifi	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	niquests	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	npyscreen	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ffmpeg-python	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dotenv	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-wtf	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	waitress	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	packaging	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	patchright	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	curl_cffi	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	windows-curses	`<3.14`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 20 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	certifi	`—`	direct
PyPI	certifi	`2024.2.2`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`—`	direct
PyPI	curl-cffi	`—`	direct
PyPI	ffmpeg-python	`—`	direct
PyPI	flask	`—`	direct
PyPI	flask-wtf	`—`	direct
PyPI	niquests	`—`	direct
PyPI	npyscreen	`—`	direct
PyPI	packaging	`—`	direct
PyPI	patchright	`—`	direct
PyPI	python-dotenv	`—`	direct
PyPI	waitress	`—`	direct
PyPI	windows-curses	`—`	direct
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.12.3`	indirect
PyPI	brotli	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	bs4	`0.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.7`	indirect
PyPI	inflate64	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	multivolumefile	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	mutagen	`1.47.0`	indirect
PyPI	psutil	`5.9.8`	indirect
PyPI	py7zr	`0.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pybcj	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pycryptodomex	`3.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyppmd	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyzstd	`0.15.10`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.5`	indirect
PyPI	texttable	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`12.0`	indirect
PyPI	yt-dlp	`2024.4.9`	indirect

Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 21 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 13 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
certifi	`2024.2.2`	direct	high	2	`2024.7.4`
brotli	`1.1.0`	indirect	high	2	`2.13.4`
py7zr	`0.21.0`	indirect	high	6	`1.1.3`
soupsieve	`2.5`	indirect	high	8	`2.9.0`
urllib3	`2.2.1`	indirect	high	18	`2.8.0`
yt-dlp	`2024.4.9`	indirect	high	14	`2026.7.4`
idna	`3.7`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
requests	`2.31.0`	indirect	moderate	6	`2.33.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records