Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 07:54 UTC

raimon49 / pip-licenses

Dump the license list of packages installed with pip.

PythonMIT★ 374 stars⑂ 57 forkssince Feb 2018View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#pip #pypi-packages #administrator #markdown #license-checking

raimon49/pip-licenses holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (61/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

raimonPersonal account

37 followers111 public repossince Mar 2010

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	pip-licenses	5.5.5	3,179,494	76	167 days ago	pip pypi package license check audit

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
14.5/36	Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 185 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	185
human_commit_share	0.93
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	21

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 70 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~85.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	70
latest_release_tag	v-6.0.0b11
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	11
mean_days_between_releases	85.5

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?

74Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

61Moderate

How it's scored

41.7/60	Stars — 374 stars
14.6/25	Forks — 57 forks
4.3/15	Watchers — 7 watchers

Inputs used

forks	57
stars	374
watchers	7
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

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	8
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 3,179,494 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	pip-licenses
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	3,179,494
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 64% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 34 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	34
top_contributor_share	0.637

Issue & PR responsiveness

58Moderate

How it's scored

27.7/42	Issue resolution — 66% of issues closed
22.7/30	PR acceptance — 182/241 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	182
open_issues	46
closed_issues	89
prs_merged_7d	3
prs_decided_7d	3
prs_merged_30d	8
prs_decided_30d	8
issue_closed_ratio	0.659
closed_unmerged_prs	59
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

58Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.4/25	Owner reach — 37 followers of raimon49
25/25	Track record — 111 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	37
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	raimon49
public_repos	111
account_age_days	6,027

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 167 days ago
20/20	Version history — 76 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	pip-licenses
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	167

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

78Good

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
14/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	pip, pypi-packages, administrator, markdown, license-checking
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

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
1.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 5 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	2
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:pip-licenses@5.5.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

29At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
29.2/40	Legible commit history — 51 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.548
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

82Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.07

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	52,535
source_files_sampled	2
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

374GitHub stars

34contributors

185commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

70releases

1bus factor

46open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 57 ⇿

0Stars

57Forks

55Releases

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 0

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10

5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 07:53 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7	CI-Tests	5 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
2	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1	Vulnerabilities	9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	prettytable	`>= 3.12.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tomli	`>= 2`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 55

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	prettytable	`—`	direct
PyPI	prettytable	`3.16.0`	direct
PyPI	tomli	`—`	direct
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.0`	direct
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.2.25`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.5`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`—`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.11`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	pip-tools	`7.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	pypandoc	`1.16.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-runner	`6.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`14.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.5`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`0.46.3`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pip-licenses@5.5.5 pulls in 2 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.

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