Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 04:53 UTC

python / cpython

The Python programming language

Python · CCustom license★ 77,228 stars⑂ 35,978 forkssince Feb 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

python/cpython holds a health index of 100 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Security (84/100). It was last updated today. 11 contributors account for most of its recent work.

100

overall / 100

Exceptional

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.

100

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 92 is calibrated to 100 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PythonOrganization · verified domain

32,418 followers96 public repossince Mar 2012

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36	Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 4,754 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	4,754
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	52

Release discipline

88Excellent

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 61 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36	Release recency — latest release 45 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~33.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	61
latest_release_tag	v3.13.15
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	45
mean_days_between_releases	33.6

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?

93Exceptional · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional

How it's scored

60/60	Stars — 77,228 stars
25/25	Forks — 35,978 forks
15/15	Watchers — 1,656 watchers

Inputs used

forks	35,978
stars	77,228
watchers	1,656
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

86Excellent

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
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	dev.azure.com, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

93Exceptional · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

98Exceptional

How it's scored

54/54	Bus factor — 11 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
20.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 10% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 49 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	11
contributors_sampled	100
top_contributor_share	0.102

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good

How it's scored

38.2/42	Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
25.6/30	PR acceptance — 63,596/74,601 decided PRs merged
4.3/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	63,596
open_issues	7,011
closed_issues	71,185
prs_merged_7d	48
prs_decided_7d	60
prs_merged_30d	48
prs_decided_30d	60
issue_closed_ratio	0.91
closed_unmerged_prs	11,005
first_time_authors_30d	3
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	3

Ownership & stewardship

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 32,418 followers of python
25/25	Track record — 96 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	32,418
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	python
public_repos	96
account_age_days	5,305

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 24 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .ruff.toml, Tools/peg_generator/pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

80Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://www.python.org
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://www.python.org
docs_site	https://www.python.org
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?

84Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent

How it's scored

4.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 49 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
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
4.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
2.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	8.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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	4
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	110
unassessed_packages	22
affected_by_severity	moderate 2
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 110 resolved dependencies against OSV. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

90Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 89 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.89
agent_instruction_files	.claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	603

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

96Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Doc/Makefile, Tools/freeze/test/Makefile, Tools/peg_generator/Makefile, Tools/unicode/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .ruff.toml, Tools/peg_generator/pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
11/11	Static type checking — Lib/_pyrepl/mypy.ini, Lib/test/libregrtest/mypy.ini, Lib/tomllib/mypy.ini, Platforms/emscripten/browser_test/tsconfig.json, Tools/build/mypy.ini, Tools/cases_generator/mypy.ini, Tools/check-c-api-docs/mypy.ini, Tools/clinic/mypy.ini, Tools/jit/mypy.ini, Tools/peg_generator/mypy.ini
10/10	Reproducible environment — devcontainer, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 12 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Doc/Makefile, Tools/freeze/test/Makefile, Tools/peg_generator/Makefile, Tools/unicode/Makefile
has_devcontainer	yes
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	Lib/_pyrepl/mypy.ini, Lib/test/libregrtest/mypy.ini, Lib/tomllib/mypy.ini, Platforms/emscripten/browser_test/tsconfig.json, Tools/build/mypy.ini, Tools/cases_generator/mypy.ini, Tools/check-c-api-docs/mypy.ini, Tools/clinic/mypy.ini, Tools/jit/mypy.ini, Tools/peg_generator/mypy.ini
agent_commit_share	0.12
toolchain_manifests	Platforms/Android/testbed/app/build.gradle.kts, Platforms/Android/testbed/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

77Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (Lib/_pyrepl/mypy.ini, Lib/test/libregrtest/mypy.ini, Lib/tomllib/mypy.ini, Platforms/emscripten/browser_test/tsconfig.json, Tools/build/mypy.ini, Tools/cases_generator/mypy.ini, Tools/check-c-api-docs/mypy.ini, Tools/clinic/mypy.ini, Tools/jit/mypy.ini, Tools/peg_generator/mypy.ini)
49.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 325/3,491 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	1,405,132
source_files_sampled	3,491
oversized_source_files	325

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — example

Inputs used

example_dirs	example
has_mcp_signal	no
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

77,228GitHub stars

100contributors

4,754commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

61releases

11bus factor

7,011open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 25 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 35,978 ⇿

0Stars

35,978Forks

5Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 0Patch 5

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.1 / 10

8.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 04:53 UTC

6	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: Passing
7	Code-Review	Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10	Contributors	project has 49 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
9	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6	Vulnerabilities	4 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 132

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 132 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@babel/code-frame	`7.29.0`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-validator-identifier	`7.28.5`	indirect
npm	@playwright/test	`1.61.1`	indirect
npm	@types/minimist	`1.2.5`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`24.12.0`	indirect
npm	@types/normalize-package-data	`2.4.4`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	arrify	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	async	`3.2.6`	indirect
npm	basic-auth	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	call-bind-apply-helpers	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	call-bound	`1.0.4`	indirect
npm	camelcase	`6.3.0`	indirect
npm	camelcase-keys	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	corser	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.1`	indirect
npm	decamelize	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	decamelize	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	decamelize-keys	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	dunder-proto	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	error-ex	`1.3.4`	indirect
npm	es-define-property	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	es-errors	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	es-object-atoms	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	eventemitter3	`4.0.7`	indirect
npm	find-up	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	follow-redirects	`1.15.9`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	function-bind	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	get-intrinsic	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	get-port	`6.1.2`	indirect
npm	get-port-cli	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	get-proto	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	gopd	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	hard-rejection	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	has-symbols	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	hasown	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	he	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	hosted-git-info	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	html-encoding-sniffer	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	http-proxy	`1.18.1`	indirect
npm	http-server	`14.1.1`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.6.3`	indirect
npm	indent-string	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-arrayish	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	is-core-module	`2.16.1`	indirect
npm	is-plain-obj	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	js-tokens	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	json-parse-even-better-errors	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	kind-of	`6.0.3`	indirect
npm	lines-and-columns	`1.2.4`	indirect
npm	locate-path	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	lru-cache	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	map-obj	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	map-obj	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	math-intrinsics	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	meow	`10.1.5`	indirect
npm	mime	`1.6.0`	indirect
npm	minimist	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	minimist-options	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	normalize-package-data	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	object-inspect	`1.13.4`	indirect
npm	opener	`1.5.2`	indirect
npm	p-limit	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-locate	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	parse-json	`5.2.0`	indirect
npm	path-exists	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	playwright	`1.61.1`	indirect
npm	playwright-core	`1.61.1`	indirect
npm	portfinder	`1.0.37`	indirect
npm	qs	`6.15.0`	indirect
npm	quick-lru	`5.1.1`	indirect
npm	read-pkg	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	read-pkg-up	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	redent	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	requires-port	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	safe-buffer	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	secure-compare	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.7.4`	indirect
npm	side-channel	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	side-channel-list	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	side-channel-map	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	side-channel-weakmap	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	spdx-correct	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	spdx-exceptions	`2.5.0`	indirect
npm	spdx-expression-parse	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	spdx-license-ids	`3.0.23`	indirect
npm	strip-indent	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	trim-newlines	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	type-fest	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`7.16.0`	indirect
npm	union	`0.5.0`	indirect
npm	url-join	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	validate-npm-package-license	`3.0.4`	indirect
npm	whatwg-encoding	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	yallist	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	yargs-parser	`20.2.9`	indirect
npm	yocto-queue	`0.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`—`	indirect
PyPI	blurb	`—`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`—`	indirect
PyPI	hypothesis	`6.155.3`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`—`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`—`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`—`	indirect
PyPI	python-docs-theme	`—`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`—`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-linklint	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-notfound-page	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxext-opengraph	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxext-rediraffe	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-psutil	`7.2.2.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-setuptools	`83.0.0.20260724`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 110 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
follow-redirects	`1.15.9`	indirect	moderate	1	`1.16.0`
qs	`6.15.0`	indirect	moderate	3	`6.16.0`

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records