Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 02:12 UTC

python-rope / rope

a python refactoring library

PythonLGPL-3.0★ 2,227 stars⑂ 186 forkssince Nov 2013View on GitHub ↗

python-rope/rope holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (90/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). It was last updated 197 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

python-ropeOrganization
17 followers6 public repossince Nov 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIrope1.14.01,443,93142373 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

25At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 197 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence2/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume3 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push197
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases3 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 373 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~270.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag1.14.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release373
mean_days_between_releases270.8

Community & Adoption

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

90Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54.3/60Stars2,227 stars
18.9/25Forks186 forks
7.7/15Watchers25 watchers
Inputs used
forks186
stars2,227
watchers25
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (LGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads1,443,931 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrope
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads1,443,931
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth70 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled70
top_contributor_share0.474
How it's scored
28.6/42Issue resolution68% of issues closed
22.2/30PR acceptance286/387 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs286
open_issues122
closed_issues262
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.682
closed_unmerged_prs101
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
9/25Owner reach17 followers of python-rope
18.2/25Track record6 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers17
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginpython-rope
public_repos6
account_age_days4,615
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 373 days ago
20/20Version history42 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrope
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish373

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.pylintrc
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, refactoring-tools, refactoring, ast
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 9 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
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
4/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:rope@1.14.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 packages. 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.pylintrc
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
53.9/55Manageable file sizes3/149 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes108,188
source_files_sampled149
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

2,227GitHub stars
70contributors
3commits, last 12 months
197days since last push
3releases
2bus factor
122open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 02:12 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
5CI-Tests4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 3/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
8SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpytoolconfig>= 1.2.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 1

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpytoolconfigdirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:rope@1.14.0 pulls in 3 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.