Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 11:34 UTC

scieloorg / ioisis

I/O for ISIS files in Python

PythonBSD-2-Clause★ 4 stars⑂ 1 forksince Nov 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

scieloorg/ioisis holds a health index of 25 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (54/100) and lowest on Vitality (20/100). It was last updated 1510 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

25
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.

25
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 35 is calibrated to 29 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

55 followers176 public repossince Dec 2010

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIioisis0.4.02362276 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

20At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 1,510 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1,510
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases6 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,276 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~40.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv0.4.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,276
mean_days_between_releases40.7
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?

28At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars4 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars4
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
18.4/80Monthly downloads23 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesioisis
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads23
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?

37Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution0% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance0/1 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
12.6/25Owner reach55 followers of scieloorg
25/25Track record176 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers55
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginscieloorg
public_repos176
account_age_days5,744
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 2,276 days ago
20/20Version history6 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesioisis
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2,276

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configtox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscds-isis
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?

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories11
affected_packages2
assessed_packages4
unassessed_packages4
affected_by_severityhigh 2
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 4 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

41Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history83 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.83
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configtox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
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_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes30,946
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4GitHub stars
1contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,510days since last push
6releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.2 / 10
2.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 11:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIclickindirect
PyPIclick7.1.2indirect
PyPIconstructindirect
PyPIconstruct2.10.56indirect
PyPIjpype1indirect
PyPIjpype10.7.5indirect
PyPIujsonindirect
PyPIujson2.0.3indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click7.1.2indirecthigh18.3.3
ujson2.0.3indirecthigh105.13.0

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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