Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:34 UTC

roniemartinez / latex2mathml

Pure Python library for LaTeX to MathML conversion

Python · HTMLMIT★ 245 stars⑂ 32 forkssince Jan 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#mathml#latex#python3#python

roniemartinez/latex2mathml holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (52/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ronie MartinezPersonal account
109 followers57 public repossince Oct 2012@breww-com

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIlatex2mathml3.81.0-17594 days agolatexmathml

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume — 88 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year88
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 27 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 94 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~120.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tag3.81.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release94
mean_days_between_releases120.6
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

54Moderate
How it's scored
38.7/60Stars — 245 stars
12.4/25Forks — 32 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks32
stars245
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

35Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.597

Issue & PR responsiveness

94Exceptional
How it's scored
40.6/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 479/524 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs479
open_issues3
closed_issues86
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.966
closed_unmerged_prs45
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.7/25Owner reach — 109 followers of roniemartinez
24.8/25Track record — 57 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers109
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginroniemartinez
public_repos57
account_age_days5,022
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 94 days ago
20/20Version history — 175 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslatex2mathml
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish94

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmathml, latex, python3, python
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no data
0/7.5Code-Review — no data
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CII-Best-Practices, Code-Review, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

86Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — latex2mathml/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configslatex2mathml/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

78Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (latex2mathml/py.typed)
51.1/55Manageable file sizes — 1/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes70,399
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

245GitHub stars
10contributors
88commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
27releases
1bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 13:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
n/aCII-Best-Practicesinternal error: error during json parsing: error during json.Unmarshal: invalid character '<' looking for beginning of value
n/aCode-ReviewFound no human activity in the last 30 changesets
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 34 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.4indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.25.2indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.17indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIlatex2mathml3.81.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.4indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpprintpp0.4.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-clarity1.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.1.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrich14.3.3indirect
PyPIruff0.15.22indirect
PyPIsyrupy5.5.3indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.2.0indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with roniemartinez/latex2mathml. Read them side by side →

99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional98neo4j/neo4j-graphrag-pythonNeo4j GraphRAG for PythonExceptional98bloomberg/memrayMemray is a memory profiler for PythonExceptional98fastapi/fastapiFastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for productionExceptional97celery/celeryDistributed Task Queue (development branch)Exceptional97typeddjango/django-stubsPEP-484 stubs for DjangoExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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