Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-08 19:04 UTC

pyscaffold / configupdater

🌴 Parser like ConfigParser but for updating configuration files

PythonCustom license★ 76 stars⑂ 10 forkssince Jun 2018View on GitHub ↗

pyscaffold/configupdater holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Vitality (36/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PyScaffoldOrganization

40 followers16 public repossince Dec 2017

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	ConfigUpdater	3.2	5,975,435	25	985 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

36Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

39Weak

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 5 days ago
0.7/36	Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18	Commit volume — 1 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	1
human_commit_share	0.75
days_since_last_push	5
active_weeks_last_year	1

Release discipline

32At Risk

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 9 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,504 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~181.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	9
latest_release_tag	v3.1.1
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	1,504
mean_days_between_releases	181.3

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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

40Weak

How it's scored

30.4/60	Stars — 76 stars
8/25	Forks — 10 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	10
stars	76
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

64Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
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	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 5,975,435 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	ConfigUpdater
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	5,975,435

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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
12.2/13.5	Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	9
top_contributor_share	0.562

Issue & PR responsiveness

71Good

How it's scored

32.4/42	Issue resolution — 77% of issues closed
26.3/30	PR acceptance — 93/106 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	93
open_issues	8
closed_issues	27
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.771
closed_unmerged_prs	13
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
11.6/25	Owner reach — 40 followers of pyscaffold
21/25	Track record — 16 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	40
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	pyscaffold
public_repos	16
account_age_days	3,158

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 985 days ago
20/20	Version history — 25 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	ConfigUpdater
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	985

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — tox.ini
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://configupdater.readthedocs.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	python, configuration-files, updating
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://configupdater.readthedocs.io/
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?

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
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
2.2/2.5	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
0/5	Packaging — no data
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
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	3.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

10Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
10/40	Legible commit history — 14 of 75 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.187
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11	Static type checking — src/configupdater/py.typed
0/10	Reproducible environment
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	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/configupdater/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/configupdater/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/19 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	40,941
source_files_sampled	19
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

76GitHub stars

9contributors

1commits, last 12 months

5days since last push

9releases

1bus factor

8open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 10 ⇿

0Stars

10Forks

6Releases

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 6

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10

3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 19:04 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
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
9	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not 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
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`—`	setup.cfg

All dependencies 2

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`—`	direct
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — 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

Related records