Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-14 04:38 UTC

pnxenopoulos / awpy

Python library to parse, analyze and visualize Counter-Strike 2 data

Rust · PythonMIT★ 618 stars⑂ 85 forkssince Jan 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

pnxenopoulos/awpy holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on Security (49/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Peter XenopoulosPersonal account
102 followers29 public repossince Aug 2018NVIDIA

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
crates.ioawpy3.0.0-10 days agoparserdemocs2counter-strikesource2game-developmentparsingencodingparser-implementations
crates.ioawpy-proto0.1.11076591+2000924-10 days agoprotobufdemocs2counter-strikeencodinggame-development
PyPIawpy3.0.03,353320 days agocounter-strikecs2demoparseresports

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

56Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagawpy-python-v3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.3/60Stars — 618 stars
16/25Forks — 85 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks85
stars618
watchers8
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_badges7
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesreadthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47/80Monthly downloads — 3,353 downloads/month across crates, pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesawpy, awpy-proto, awpy
dependents—
ecosystemscrates, pypi
total_downloads0
monthly_downloads3,353
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 91% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.914
How it's scored
37.6/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
14.3/30PR acceptance — 152/318 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs152
open_issues21
closed_issues181
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.896
closed_unmerged_prs166
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.5/25Owner reach — 102 followers of pnxenopoulos
22.8/25Track record — 29 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers102
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginpnxenopoulos
public_repos29
account_age_days2,984
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates, pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 32 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesawpy, awpy-proto, awpy
ecosystemscrates, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/awpy-python/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), crates/awpy/Cargo.toml ([lints])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://www.awpycs.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscounter-strike-global-offensive, counter-strike, esports, sports-analytics, sports-data, csgo, python
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.awpycs.com
docs_sitehttp://www.awpycs.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.9/40Legible commit history — 41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.41
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — crates/awpy-python/docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/awpy-python/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), crates/awpy/Cargo.toml ([lints])
11/11Static type checking — crates/awpy-python/python/awpy/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filescrates/awpy-python/docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configscrates/awpy-python/python/awpy/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml, crates/awpy-proto/Cargo.toml, crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml, crates/awpy/Cargo.toml, scripts/build-protos/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
53.1/55Manageable file sizes — 3/85 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes532,609
source_files_sampled85
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — crates/awpy-proto/proto/cs_gameevents.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/cs_usercmd.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/cstrike15_gcmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/cstrike15_usermessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/demo.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/engine_gcmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/gameevents.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/gcsdk_gcmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/netmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/network_connection.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/networkbasetypes.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/source2_steam_stats.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/steammessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/usercmd.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/usermessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/valveextensions.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filescrates/awpy-proto/proto/cs_gameevents.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/cs_usercmd.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/cstrike15_gcmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/cstrike15_usermessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/demo.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/engine_gcmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/gameevents.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/gcsdk_gcmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/netmessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/network_connection.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/networkbasetypes.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/source2_steam_stats.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/steammessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/usercmd.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/usermessages.proto, crates/awpy-proto/proto/valveextensions.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

618GitHub stars
10contributors
0commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
21open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'awpy-dev' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'awpy-python' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'build-awpy-protos' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index crates:awpy@3.0.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 85 ⇿
0Stars
85Forks

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.

0204060801008322020-082023-092026-10

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-14 04:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
2CI-Tests1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 32
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow—crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.5crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml
crates.iocolored2crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde—crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json—crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml
crates.ioawpy—crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml
crates.ioawpy-proto—crates/awpy-dev/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.11crates/awpy-proto/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost—crates/awpy-proto/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost-types0.14crates/awpy-proto/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde—crates/awpy-proto/Cargo.toml
crates.ioawpy—crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml
crates.ioawpy-proto—crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost—crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml
crates.iopyo30.27crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml
crates.iopyo3-polars0.26crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml
crates.iopolars0.53crates/awpy-python/Cargo.toml
PyPIpolars>=2.0,<3crates/awpy-python/pyproject.toml
PyPItyper>=0.12crates/awpy-python/pyproject.toml
crates.ioanyhow—crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.iomemmap20.9crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost—crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde—crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json—crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.iosnap1.1crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.ioawpy-proto—crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.iopbdems2—crates/awpy/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost-build0.14scripts/build-protos/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprotoc-bin-vendored3.2.0scripts/build-protos/Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1scripts/build-protos/Cargo.toml
crates.iotempfile3scripts/build-protos/Cargo.toml
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 statistics — crates.io, PyPI.