Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 06:38 UTC

scikit-hep / awkward

Manipulate JSON-like data with NumPy-like idioms.

Python · C++BSD-3-Clause★ 976 stars⑂ 139 forkssince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

scikit-hep/awkward holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Scikit-HEP ProjectOrganization
307 followers55 public repossince Nov 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIawkward2.13.0-20928 days ago
PyPIawkward_cpp562,213,3218728 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 343 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year343
human_commit_share0.87
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year49

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 28 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~36.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.13.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release28
mean_days_between_releases36.4

Community & Adoption

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

78Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.5/60Stars — 976 stars
17.8/25Forks — 139 forks
6.2/15Watchers — 14 watchers
Inputs used
forks139
stars976
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges11
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 2,213,321 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesawkward, awkward_cpp
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,213,321
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?

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 60 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled60
top_contributor_share0.384
How it's scored
35.4/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 2,361/2,636 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs2,361
open_issues210
closed_issues1,120
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d9
prs_merged_30d15
prs_decided_30d15
issue_closed_ratio0.842
closed_unmerged_prs275
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.9/25Owner reach — 307 followers of scikit-hep
24.7/25Track record — 55 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers307
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginscikit-hep
public_repos55
account_age_days3,588

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 28 days ago
20/20Version history — 209 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesawkward, awkward_cpp
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish28

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

95Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 21 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://awkward-array.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjson, numpy, data-analysis, jagged-array, ragged-array, columnar-format, pandas, numba, apache-arrow, cern-root, scikit-hep, python, rdataframe
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://awkward-array.org
docs_sitehttps://awkward-array.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsawkward-cpp/pyproject.toml, docs/requirements-wasm.txt, docs/requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, requirements-test-basic.txt, requirements-test-full.txt, requirements-test-gpu.txt, requirements-test-minimal.txt, requirements-test-ml.txt, requirements-test-nogil.txt, requirements-test-numpy1.txt
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes
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 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_packages4
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:awkward@2.13.0 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.

79Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 83 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.954
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,414
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint])
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 42 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesnoxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.42
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 26/1,312 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes216,019
source_files_sampled1,312
oversized_source_files26
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 — examples, notebooks, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks, samples
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

976GitHub stars
60contributors
343commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
210open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'awkward' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 139 ⇿
0Stars
139Forks
100Releases

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.

025507510012515013872019-122023-042026-09
Major 1Minor 15Patch 63

Each point covers 7 days.

Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=1.21.3awkward-cpp/pyproject.toml
PyPIawkward_cpp==56pyproject.toml
PyPIimportlib_metadata>=4.13.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.21.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging—pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfsspec>=2022.11.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 52 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIawkward-cpp56direct
PyPIfsspec—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPInumpy1.21.3direct
PyPIawkward—indirect
PyPIblack—indirect
PyPIcmake—indirect
PyPIfsspec-xrootd—indirect
PyPIh5py—indirect
PyPIhatchling—indirect
PyPIhepunits—indirect
PyPIhist—indirect
PyPIhypothesis-awkward0.20.0indirect
PyPIipyleaflet—indirect
PyPIjax—indirect
PyPIjupyterlite0.1.0indirect
PyPIjupyterlite-pyodide-kernel0.1.0indirect
PyPIjupyterlite-sphinx0.8.0indirect
PyPIlark-parser—indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPImyst-nb—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPInumba—indirect
PyPInumba-cuda—indirect
PyPInumexpr—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpandas1.3.4indirect
PyPIparticle—indirect
PyPIpyarrow—indirect
PyPIpyarrow17.0.0indirect
PyPIpybind11—indirect
PyPIpycparser—indirect
PyPIpydantic—indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme—indirect
PyPIpyodide-build0.23.3indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIs3fs—indirect
PyPIsafetensors—indirect
PyPIscikit-build—indirect
PyPIscikit-build-core—indirect
PyPIscikit-hep-testdata—indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autoapi—indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton—indirect
PyPIsphinx-design—indirect
PyPIsphinx-external-toc—indirect
PyPIsphinx-sitemap—indirect
PyPItensorflow—indirect
PyPItorch—indirect
PyPIuproot—indirect
PyPIvector—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:awkward@2.13.0 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.

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 statistics — PyPI.