Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 17:51 UTC

rubik / radon

Various code metrics for Python code

PythonMIT★ 2,010 stars⑂ 138 forkssince Sep 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#python#cli#static-analysis#code-analysis#quality-assurance

rubik/radon holds a health index of 30 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 676 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

30
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

30
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Michele LacchiaPersonal account
121 followers83 public repossince Apr 2010

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
PyPIradon6.0.15,892,765531250 days agostaticanalysiscodecomplexitymetrics

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 676 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_share0.99
days_since_last_push676
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

40Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 44 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,250 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~102.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count44
latest_release_tagv6.0.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1,250
mean_days_between_releases102.1
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

80Excellent
How it's scored
53.6/60Stars — 2,010 stars
17.8/25Forks — 138 forks
8.5/15Watchers — 35 watchers
Inputs used
forks138
stars2,010
watchers35
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 5,892,765 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesradon
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,892,765
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?

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

25At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 48 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled48
top_contributor_share0.877

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
33.7/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
24.3/30PR acceptance — 72/89 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs72
open_issues36
closed_issues147
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.803
closed_unmerged_prs17
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.

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15/25Owner reach — 121 followers of rubik
25/25Track record — 83 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers121
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginrubik
public_repos83
account_age_days5,986
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

69Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,250 days ago
20/20Version history — 53 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesradon
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,250

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://radon.readthedocs.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, cli, static-analysis, code-analysis, quality-assurance
has_wikino
homepagehttp://radon.readthedocs.org/
docs_sitehttp://radon.readthedocs.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk
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 13 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:radon@6.0.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.codeclimate.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.codeclimate.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 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_testsyes
lockfilesPipfile.lock, poetry.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 1/183 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes76,453
source_files_sampled183
oversized_source_files1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
has_mcp_signalno
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

2,010GitHub stars
48contributors
0commits, last 12 months
676days since last push
44releases
1bus factor
36open 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 ★ / 138 ⇿
0Stars
138Forks
44Releases

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.

025507510012515013642013-012019-112026-08
Major 5Minor 11Patch 28

Each point covers 13 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 · 2026-08-27 17:51 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImando>=0.6,<0.8pyproject.toml
PyPIcolorama—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 69

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 62 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcolorama—direct
PyPIcolorama0.3.9direct
PyPIcolorama0.4.1direct
PyPIcolorama0.4.6direct
PyPImando—direct
PyPImando0.3.3direct
PyPImando0.7.1direct
PyPIappdirs1.4.4indirect
PyPIargparse1.4.0indirect
PyPIattrs22.2.0indirect
PyPIcachetools5.3.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2022.12.7indirect
PyPIchardet5.1.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer2.0.12indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcoverage4.4indirect
PyPIcoverage6.5.0indirect
PyPIcoveralls—indirect
PyPIcoveralls3.3.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.6indirect
PyPIdocopt0.6.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.1.1indirect
PyPIfastjsonschema2.16.3indirect
PyPIfilelock3.0.12indirect
PyPIfilelock3.10.4indirect
PyPIflake83.9.1indirect
PyPIflake8-polyfill1.0.1indirect
PyPIidna3.4indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata6.1.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources5.12.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.17.3indirect
PyPIjupyter-core4.12.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.6.1indirect
PyPImock2.0.0indirect
PyPInbformat—indirect
PyPInbformat5.8.0indirect
PyPIpackaging23.0indirect
PyPIpbr5.5.1indirect
PyPIpkgutil-resolve-name1.3.10indirect
PyPIplatformdirs3.1.1indirect
PyPIpluggy0.13.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.0.0indirect
PyPIpy1.10.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.7.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.3.1indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.5.1indirect
PyPIpyrsistent0.19.3indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest3.0.7indirect
PyPIpytest7.2.2indirect
PyPIpytest-mock—indirect
PyPIpytest-mock1.6.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.10.0indirect
PyPIpywin32305indirect
PyPIrequests2.27.1indirect
PyPIsix1.15.0indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItox—indirect
PyPItox2.7.0indirect
PyPItox4.4.7indirect
PyPItraitlets5.9.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.5.0indirect
PyPIurllib31.26.15indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.21.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.4.4indirect
PyPIzipp3.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:radon@6.0.1 pulls in 3 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with rubik/radon. Read them side by side →

100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK Exceptional100psf/blackThe uncompromising Python code formatterExceptional99pydantic/logfireAI observability platform for production LLM and agent systems.Exceptional99aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional99apache/supersetApache Superset is a Data Visualization and Data Exploration PlatformExceptional

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.