Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-09 23:16 UTC

pmorissette / ffn

ffn - a financial function library for Python

PythonMIT★ 2,683 stars⑂ 380 forkssince Jun 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

pmorissette/ffn holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (59/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Philippe MorissettePersonal account
332 followers13 public repossince Sep 2010

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIffn1.4.055,398470 days agoalgorithmic-tradingalgotradingfinancepythonquantquant-finance

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 314 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year314
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 20 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~88.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv1.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases88.3
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.6/60Stars — 2,683 stars
21.5/25Forks — 380 forks
9.7/15Watchers — 57 watchers
Inputs used
forks380
stars2,683
watchers57
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63.2/80Monthly downloads — 55,398 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesffn
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads55,398
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 47 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled47
top_contributor_share0.603
How it's scored
40.8/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 246/270 decided PRs merged
11.4/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 7/8 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs246
open_issues4
closed_issues134
prs_merged_7d16
prs_decided_7d17
prs_merged_30d55
prs_decided_30d56
issue_closed_ratio0.971
closed_unmerged_prs24
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d7
first_time_prs_decided_30d8
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.1/25Owner reach — 332 followers of pmorissette
20.3/25Track record — 13 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers332
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginpmorissette
public_repos13
account_age_days5,863
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 47 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesffn
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 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 site — pmorissette.github.io/ffn
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagepmorissette.github.io/ffn
docs_sitepmorissette.github.io/ffn
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
31.3/40Legible commit history — 57 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.588
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
50.2/55Manageable file sizes — 2/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes202,283
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files2
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,683GitHub stars
47contributors
314commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
20releases
1bus factor
4open 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:ffn@1.4.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 380 ⇿
0Stars
380Forks
18Releases

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.

012525037537082014-082020-092026-10
Major 1Minor 2Patch 15

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-09 23:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 8/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdecorator>=5.0.7pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=1pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy—pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=0.19pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn>=0.15pyproject.toml
PyPIscipy>=0.15pyproject.toml
PyPItabulate>=0.7.5pyproject.toml
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdecorator—direct
PyPImatplotlib—direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPIscikit-learn—direct
PyPIscipy—direct
PyPItabulate—direct
PyPIklink—indirect
PyPImdformat-tables—indirect
PyPIyardang—indirect
PyPIyfinance—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 statistics — PyPI.