Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-04 03:06 UTC

rnnh / vaporiser

🎵 Creates a vaporwave (slowed, with reverb) remix of a given MP3 file, with the option of playing over a looped GIF as a video.

PythonMIT★ 61 stars⑂ 4 forkssince May 2020View on GitHub ↗

rnnh/vaporiser holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (46/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (19/100). It was last updated 852 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

19
overall / 100
Critical

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.

19
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 37 is calibrated to 31 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ronan HarringtonPersonal account
86 followers12 public repossince Nov 2019

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 852 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.795
days_since_last_push852
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,602 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~59.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv0.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,602
mean_days_between_releases59.5
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/60Stars — 61 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars61
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

46Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance — 16/18 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs16
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.9/25Owner reach — 86 followers of rnnh
20.1/25Track record — 12 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers86
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginrnnh
public_repos12
account_age_days2,456
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmusic, vaporwave, remix, audio-processing, audio, video-production, python, python3, mp3, reverb, sox, gif, video
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories65
affected_packages9
assessed_packages36
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 5, moderate 1, low 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 36 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.

19Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.2/40Legible commit history — 20 of 62 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.323
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 78
8/8Automated maintenance — 16 of the last 78 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.205
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes7,526
source_files_sampled1
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

61GitHub stars
1contributors
0commits, last 12 months
852days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
3Releases

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.

1223344412021-052023-062025-07
Major 0Minor 3Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 03:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 36 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIblack22.1.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2023.7.22indirect
PyPIchardet4.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer2.0.12indirect
PyPIclick8.0.4indirect
PyPIcycler0.11.0indirect
PyPIdecorator4.4.2indirect
PyPIfonttools4.29.1indirect
PyPIidna3.3indirect
PyPIimagecodecs2023.9.18indirect
PyPIimageio2.16.0indirect
PyPIimageio-ffmpeg0.4.5indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.3.2indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.5.1indirect
PyPImoviepy1.0.3indirect
PyPImypy-extensions0.4.3indirect
PyPInetworkx2.6.3indirect
PyPInumpy1.22.2indirect
PyPIpackaging21.3indirect
PyPIpathspec0.9.0indirect
PyPIpillow10.0.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs2.5.1indirect
PyPIproglog0.1.9indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.0.7indirect
PyPIpysndfx0.3.6indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.8.2indirect
PyPIpywavelets1.2.0indirect
PyPIpywheel0.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.31.0indirect
PyPIscikit-image0.19.2indirect
PyPIscipy1.10.0indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPItifffile2022.2.9indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.62.3indirect
PyPIurllib31.26.18indirect
Dependency advisories 9

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 36 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 9 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
black22.1.0indirectcritical426.3.1
pillow10.0.1indirectcritical3212.3.0
certifi2023.7.22indirecthigh22024.7.4
click8.0.4indirecthigh18.3.3
fonttools4.29.1indirecthigh24.43.0
idna3.3indirecthigh43.15
urllib31.26.18indirecthigh122.7.0
requests2.31.0indirectmoderate62.33.0
tqdm4.62.3indirectlow24.66.3

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

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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