Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 10:13 UTC

samuelcolvin / python-devtools

Dev tools for python

PythonMIT★ 1,077 stars⑂ 50 forkssince Aug 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryPluginDesktop applicationCommand-line toolhow this is determined

samuelcolvin/python-devtools holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). It was last updated 595 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Samuel ColvinPersonal account

6,649 followers311 public repossince Apr 2013@pydantic

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
PyPI	devtools	0.12.2	2,539,231	18	1104 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

18Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 595 daysautomated commits excludedpull requests left unansweredissues left unansweredreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedOverall rating: At Risk ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 595 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	0.93
days_since_last_push	595
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

44Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 18 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,104 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~125.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	18
latest_release_tag	v0.12.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,104
mean_days_between_releases	125.7

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?

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

68Good

How it's scored

49.2/60	Stars — 1,077 stars
14.1/25	Forks — 50 forks
4.7/15	Watchers — 8 watchers

Inputs used

forks	50
stars	1,077
watchers	8
growth_state	organic
growth_factor_pct	100

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	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	5
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 2,539,231 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	devtools
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,539,231
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	13
top_contributor_share	0.835

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate

How it's scored

27.3/42	Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed
21.4/30	PR acceptance — 67/94 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	67
open_issues	22
closed_issues	41
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.651
closed_unmerged_prs	27
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

75Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25	Owner reach — 6,649 followers of samuelcolvin
25/25	Track record — 311 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	6,649
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	samuelcolvin
public_repos	311
account_age_days	4,910

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

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 1,104 days ago
20/20	Version history — 18 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	devtools
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	1,104

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://python-devtools.helpmanual.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	python-devtools, python, devtools
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://python-devtools.helpmanual.io/
docs_site	https://python-devtools.helpmanual.io/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 11 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
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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	4
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:devtools@0.12.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

34At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.8/40	Legible commit history — 59 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.634
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

70Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black])
11/11	Static type checking — devtools/py.typed
0/10	Reproducible environment
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
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	devtools/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 (devtools/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/27 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	12,185
source_files_sampled	27
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

1,077GitHub stars

13contributors

0commits, last 12 months

595days since last push

18releases

1bus factor

22open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Star history carried forward from 2026-07-21: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 1077 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 1,081 ★ / 50 ⇿

1,081Stars

50Forks

11Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-21. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

Major 0Minor 6Patch 4

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10

4.3aggregate

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 10:13 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 7/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 11 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
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7	Vulnerabilities	3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	executing	`>=1.1.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	asttokens	`>=2.0.0,<3.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Pygments	`>=2.15.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 55 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	asttokens	`—`	direct
PyPI	asttokens	`2.2.1`	direct
PyPI	executing	`—`	direct
PyPI	executing	`1.2.0`	direct
PyPI	pygments	`—`	direct
PyPI	pygments	`2.15.0`	direct
PyPI	ansi2html	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	asyncpg	`0.27.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`22.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	black	`23.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2023.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.4`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.3.7`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-include	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-include	`0.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-exclude	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`8.3.9`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-simple-hooks	`0.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`1.24.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`23.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`3.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`1.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`7.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-pretty	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`0.1`	indirect
PyPI	regex	`2023.3.23`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`13.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.0.261`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.0.8`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`1.26.15`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`3.0.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:devtools@0.12.2 pulls in 4 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