Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 13:04 UTC

python-validators / validators

Python Data Validation for Humans™.

PythonMIT★ 1,123 stars⑂ 188 forkssince Oct 2013View on GitHub ↗

python-validators/validators holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (79/100) and lowest on Vitality (35/100). It was last updated 166 days ago. 2 contributors account 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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

python-validatorsOrganization

11 followers1 public reposince Sep 2022

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	Tags
PyPI	validators	0.35.0	28,660,942	60	483 days ago	validation validator python-validator

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

18Critical

How it's scored

9.9/36	Push recency — last push 166 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18	Commit volume — 4 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	4
human_commit_share	0.92
days_since_last_push	166
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

61Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 22 releases published
7.2/36	Release recency — latest release 483 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~41.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	22
latest_release_tag	0.35.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	483
mean_days_between_releases	41.9

Community & Adoption

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

79Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

74Good

How it's scored

49.5/60	Stars — 1,123 stars
18.9/25	Forks — 188 forks
6/15	Watchers — 13 watchers

Inputs used

forks	188
stars	1,123
watchers	13
growth_state	organic
growth_factor_pct	100

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
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 — 28,660,942 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	validators
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	28,660,942
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 56 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	56
top_contributor_share	0.434

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

41.1/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
21.8/30	PR acceptance — 182/250 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	182
open_issues	4
closed_issues	190
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.979
closed_unmerged_prs	68
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

48Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
7.8/25	Owner reach — 11 followers of python-validators
10.1/25	Track record — 1 public repos, account ~3 yr old

Inputs used

followers	11
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	python-validators
public_repos	1
account_age_days	1,449

Package maintenance

79Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 483 days ago
20/20	Version history — 60 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	validators
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	483

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 17 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	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://yozachar.github.io/pyvalidators
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://yozachar.github.io/pyvalidators
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?

56Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

45Weak

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
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 1 out of 17 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
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 9/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	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
0.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file 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
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 49 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.5

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	24
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	44
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 2, moderate 3, low 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 44 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 78 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.848
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — src/validators/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	pdm.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/validators/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.08

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/validators/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/64 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	14,979
source_files_sampled	64
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

1,123GitHub stars

56contributors

4commits, last 12 months

166days since last push

22releases

2bus factor

4open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Star history carried forward from 2026-07-14: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 1123 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 1,120 ★ / 188 ⇿

1,120Stars

188Forks

22Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-14. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

Major 0Minor 15Patch 7

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10

4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 13:04 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	1 out of 17 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
6	Code-Review	Found 9/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	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
1	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	49 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 44

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 44 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	alabaster	`0.7.13`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.12.3`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2024.7.4`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.20.1`	indirect
PyPI	eth-hash	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2024.8.6`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.7`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`24.1`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycryptodome	`3.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	pypandoc-binary	`1.13`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.378`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.4`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.5`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`7.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-basic-ng	`1.0.0b2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`1.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`1.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.19.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 44 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
soupsieve	`2.5`	indirect	high	4	`2.8.4`
urllib3	`2.2.2`	indirect	high	12	`2.7.0`
idna	`3.7`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
pytest	`8.3.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
requests	`2.32.4`	indirect	moderate	2	`2.33.0`
pygments	`2.18.0`	indirect	low	2	`2.20.0`

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