Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-07 02:42 UTC

sea-turt1e / kanjiconv

Kanji Converter to Hiragana, Katakana, Roman alphabet.

PythonApache-2.0★ 20 stars⑂ 1 forksince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

sea-turt1e/kanjiconv holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (70/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

sea-turt1ePersonal account
2 followers61 public repossince Jan 2017

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
PyPIkanjiconv0.3.01,0981018 days agoconverterkanakanjipropernounsudachi

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

56Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 18 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
14.2/18Commit volume — 37 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year37
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year5

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 32 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~206.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv0.2.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release32
mean_days_between_releases206.9
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?

39Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

21At Risk
How it's scored
20.7/60Stars — 20 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars20
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

51Moderate
How it's scored
40.5/80Monthly downloads — 1,098 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageskanjiconv
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,098
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

14Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 95% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.951

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance — 34/36 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs34
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
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.

Ownership & stewardship

48Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of sea-turt1e
25/25Track record — 61 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsea-turt1e
public_repos61
account_age_days3,484
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 18 days ago
20/20Version history — 10 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageskanjiconv
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish18

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

38Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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_packages2
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:kanjiconv@0.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

36Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.3/40Legible commit history — 68 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.68
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes8,813
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

20GitHub stars
3contributors
37commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-07 02:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIsudachipy>=0.6.8pyproject.toml
PyPIsudachidict-full—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIsudachidict-full20250825direct
PyPIsudachipy0.6.10direct
PyPIcertifi2025.10.5indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.11.0indirect
PyPIdocopt0.6.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIfugashi1.5.1indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIkanjiconv0.3.0indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIplac1.4.5indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytest-watch4.2.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItqdm4.67.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIunidic1.1.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.5.0indirect
PyPIwasabi0.10.1indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:kanjiconv@0.3.0 pulls in 2 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with sea-turt1e/kanjiconv. Read them side by side →

94vinitkumar/json2xmlJSON-to-XML converter for Python, accelerated with a native Rust extension.Exceptional90Kozea/WeasyPrintThe awesome document factoryExcellent87xberg-io/html-to-markdownHigh performance and CommonMark compliant HTML to Markdown converter. Maintained by the Kreuzberg team. Kreuzberg is a fast, polyglot document intelligence engine with a Rust core. It extracts structured data from 56+ document formats using streaming parsers and built-in OCR.Excellent86showdownjs/showdownA bidirectional Markdown to HTML to Markdown converter written in JavascriptExcellent83RonnyPfannschmidt/pranceResolving Swagger/OpenAPI 2.0 and 3.0 ParserExcellent77fusion-energy/cad_to_dagmcConvert CAD geometry (STP files) or Cadquery assemblies to DAGMC h5m filesGood

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 statistics — PyPI.