Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-12 22:42 UTC

sammchardy / python-binance

Binance Exchange API python implementation for automated trading

PythonMIT★ 7,198 stars⑂ 2,264 forkssince Aug 2017View on GitHub ↗

sammchardy/python-binance holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (91/100) and lowest on Security (21/100). It was last updated 65 days ago. 6 contributors account 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

Sam McHardyPersonal account
795 followers15 public repossince Feb 2014Geoscape

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
PyPIpython_binance1.0.37-9965 days agobinanceexchangerestapibitcoinethereumbtcethneo

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 65 days ago
9/36Commit cadence13/52 weeks with commits
14.2/18Commit volume37 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year37
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push65
active_weeks_last_year13
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases25 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 65 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~51.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv1.0.37
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release65
mean_days_between_releases51.8

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

76Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars7,198 stars
25/25Forks2,264 forks
13/15Watchers218 watchers
Inputs used
forks2,264
stars7,198
watchers218
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
48.6/54Bus factor6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 19% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor6
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.19
How it's scored
24.4/42Issue resolution58% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance338/429 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs338
open_issues506
closed_issues701
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.581
closed_unmerged_prs91
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
20.9/25Owner reach795 followers of sammchardy
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers795
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginsammchardy
public_repos15
account_age_days4,565
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 65 days ago
20/20Version history99 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespython_binance
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish65

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configtox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://python-binance.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbinance, python, python2, python3, websockets, cryptocurrency, api
has_wikino
homepagehttps://python-binance.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
docs_sitehttps://python-binance.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

21At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilespublished library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifestsdocs/requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, requirements.txt, setup.cfg, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages21
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:python_binance@1.0.37 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 21 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.

72Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configtox.ini
11/11Static type checkingpyrightconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspyrightconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json)
52.8/55Manageable file sizes3/75 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes691,867
source_files_sampled75
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

7,198GitHub stars
99contributors
37commits, last 12 months
65days since last push
25releases
6bus factor
506open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2,264 ⇿
0Stars
2,264Forks
20Releases

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.

1,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,264122021-052023-122026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 20

Each point covers 5 days.

All dependencies 23

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 23 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohttpindirect
PyPIaioresponsesindirect
PyPIcoverageindirect
PyPIdateparserindirect
PyPIorjsonindirect
PyPIpre-commitindirect
PyPIpycryptodomeindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-asyncioindirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPIpytest-rerunfailuresindirect
PyPIpytest-timeoutindirect
PyPIpytest-xdistindirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIrequests-mockindirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIsixindirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybuttonindirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.0.1indirect
PyPItoxindirect
PyPIwebsocketsindirect
PyPIwebsockets-proxyindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:python_binance@1.0.37 pulls in 21 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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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