Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 14:44 UTC

scverse / pertpy

Single-cell perturbation analysis

PythonMIT★ 337 stars⑂ 64 forkssince Jun 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

scverse/pertpy holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (100/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (71/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

95
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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

scverseOrganization
1,546 followers88 public repossince Nov 2021

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence — 44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 158 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year158
human_commit_share0.75
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year44

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 28 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~44.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count28
latest_release_tag1.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases44.3
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41/60Stars — 337 stars
15/25Forks — 64 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks64
stars337
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
51.7/80Monthly downloads — 7,588 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespertpy
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads7,588
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 49 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled49
top_contributor_share0.693
How it's scored
41.1/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance — 599/664 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs599
open_issues9
closed_issues398
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d24
prs_decided_30d24
issue_closed_ratio0.978
closed_unmerged_prs65
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
22.9/25Owner reach — 1,546 followers of scverse
22.5/25Track record — 88 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,546
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginscverse
public_repos88
account_age_days1,727

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 30 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespertpy
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

100Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pertpy.readthedocs.io/en/stable
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsscverse, single-cell, perturbation, anndata, bioinformatics, computational-biology, crispr, differential-abundance, differential-expression, drug-discovery, perturb-seq, python, scrna-seq
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pertpy.readthedocs.io/en/stable
docs_sitehttps://pertpy.readthedocs.io/en/stable
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 71 of 75 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.947
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/pertpy/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 26 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/pertpy/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.26
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/pertpy/py.typed)
52.3/55Manageable file sizes — 5/103 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes120,143
source_files_sampled103
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

337GitHub stars
49contributors
158commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
28releases
1bus factor
9open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:pertpy@1.3.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 64 ⇿
0Stars
64Forks
25Releases

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.

01325385063756422022-112024-092026-08
Major 1Minor 9Patch 15

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 14:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
10CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIrequestspyproject.toml
PyPIrichpyproject.toml
PyPIanndatapyproject.toml
PyPIscanpypyproject.toml
PyPImudatapyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-miscpyproject.toml
PyPIadjusttextpyproject.toml
PyPIsparseccapyproject.toml
PyPIopenpyxlpyproject.toml
PyPIpubchempypyproject.toml
PyPIpyarrowpyproject.toml
PyPIblitzgseapyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn>=1.4pyproject.toml
PyPIfast-array-utilspyproject.toml
PyPIarviz>=1.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpoochpyproject.toml
PyPIscverse-miscpyproject.toml
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIarvizdirect
PyPIscikit-learndirect
PyPIdocutilsindirect
PyPIformulaic-contrastsindirect
PyPIpydeseq2indirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-bibtexindirect
PyPItoytreeindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.