Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 07:10 UTC

shredEngineer / Archive-Agent

Find your files with natural language and ask questions.

PythonGPL-3.0★ 64 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Mar 2025View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolMCP serverNetwork servicehow this is determined

#ocr #openai #python #rag #mcp-server #ollama #lm-studio #mcp #qdrant

shredEngineer/Archive-Agent holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on Security (20/100). It was last updated 21 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Dr.-Ing. Paul WilhelmPersonal account

32 followers29 public repossince May 2018

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

61Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 21 days ago
12.5/36	Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18	Commit volume — 87 commits in the last year
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

commits_last_year	87
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	21
active_weeks_last_year	18

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 53 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 63 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~16.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	53
latest_release_tag	v22.5.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	63
mean_days_between_releases	16.4

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?

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

39Weak

How it's scored

29.2/60	Stars — 64 stars
7.5/25	Forks — 9 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	9
stars	64
watchers	4
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
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	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

40Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.994

Issue & PR responsiveness

58Moderate

How it's scored

30.3/42	Issue resolution — 72% of issues closed
20/30	PR acceptance — 2/3 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	2
open_issues	17
closed_issues	44
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.721
closed_unmerged_prs	1
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

55Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.9/25	Owner reach — 32 followers of shredEngineer
22.8/25	Track record — 29 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	32
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	shredEngineer
public_repos	29
account_age_days	3,038

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — setup.cfg ([pycodestyle])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://wilhelm.dev
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 9 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ocr, openai, python, rag, mcp-server, ollama, lm-studio, mcp, qdrant
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://wilhelm.dev
docs_site	https://wilhelm.dev
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

20At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

15Critical

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
1.5/7.5	Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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 — no data
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 101 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	14
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	4
scorecard_aggregate	1.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

39Weak

How it's scored

6.3/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 5 affected: pillow 11.3.0 (critical 9.1), mcp 1.8.1 (high 7.5), diskcache 5.6.3 (moderate), +2 more
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
22.9/40	No advisories left outstanding — 5 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 434 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	197
affected_packages	23
assessed_packages	146
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 2, high 11, moderate 9, low 1
direct_affected_packages	5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 146 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

78Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt)
17.6/40	Legible commit history — 33 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.33
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	47,940

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — setup.cfg ([pycodestyle])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 30 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.3
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/151 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	24,904
source_files_sampled	151
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20	MCP server
0/40	Runnable examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	—
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

64GitHub stars

3contributors

87commits, last 12 months

21days since last push

53releases

1bus factor

17open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch pypi package 'archive-agent' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 9 ⇿

0Stars

9Forks

40Releases

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.

Major 12Minor 22Patch 5

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.5 / 10

1.5aggregate

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 07:10 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 1 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
0	Code-Review	Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
2	Maintained	3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
0	Vulnerabilities	101 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 19

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	openai	`>=1.69.0,<2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	qdrant-client	`>=1.15.0,<2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	diskcache	`>=5.6.3,<6.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typer	`>=0.15.2,<0.16.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pillow	`>=11.1.0,<12.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`>=3.4.1,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`>=14.0.0,<15.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.32.3,<3.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	streamlit	`>=1.44.1,<2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pypandoc	`>=1.15,<2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	spacy	`>=3.8.5,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	en-core-web-md	`@ https://github.com/explosion/spacy-models/releases/download/en_core_web_md-3.8.0/en_core_web_md-3.8.0-py3-none-any.whl`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pymupdf4llm	`>=0.0.21,<0.0.22`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fastapi	`>=0.115.12,<0.116`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	uvicorn	`>=0.34.2,<0.35`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	mcp	`==1.8.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ollama	`>=0.4.8,<0.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	streamlit-extras	`>=0.4.3,<0.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	kneed	`>=0.8.5,<0.9.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 146

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 127 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.2`	direct
PyPI	diskcache	`5.6.3`	direct
PyPI	en-core-web-md	`3.8.0`	direct
PyPI	fastapi	`0.115.14`	direct
PyPI	kneed	`0.8.5`	direct
PyPI	mcp	`1.8.1`	direct
PyPI	ollama	`0.4.9`	direct
PyPI	openai	`1.93.1`	direct
PyPI	pillow	`11.3.0`	direct
PyPI	pymupdf4llm	`0.0.21`	direct
PyPI	pypandoc	`1.15`	direct
PyPI	qdrant-client	`1.16.2`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.32.4`	direct
PyPI	rich	`14.0.0`	direct
PyPI	spacy	`3.8.7`	direct
PyPI	streamlit	`1.46.1`	direct
PyPI	streamlit-extras	`0.4.7`	direct
PyPI	typer	`0.15.4`	direct
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.34.3`	direct
PyPI	altair	`5.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	altex	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	archive-agent	`22.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`25.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.13.4`	indirect
PyPI	blinker	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	blis	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	catalogue	`2.0.10`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.6.15`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	cloudpathlib	`0.21.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	confection	`0.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	contourpy	`1.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	cycler	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	cymem	`2.0.11`	indirect
PyPI	distro	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	entrypoints	`0.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	faker	`37.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	favicon	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	fonttools	`4.58.5`	indirect
PyPI	gitdb	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	gitpython	`3.1.44`	indirect
PyPI	grpcio	`1.73.1`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	h2	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	hpack	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	htbuilder	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpx-sse	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	hyperframe	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.10`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jiter	`0.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.24.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	kiwisolver	`1.4.8`	indirect
PyPI	langcodes	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	language-data	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	marisa-trie	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdownlit	`0.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib	`3.10.3`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	murmurhash	`1.0.13`	indirect
PyPI	narwhals	`1.46.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	pandas	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	plotly	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	portalocker	`2.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	preshed	`3.0.10`	indirect
PyPI	prometheus-client	`0.22.1`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`6.31.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyarrow	`20.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.11.7`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.33.2`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-settings	`2.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	pydeck	`0.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`10.16`	indirect
PyPI	pymupdf	`1.26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.403`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`5.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-multipart	`0.0.20`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2025.2`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`310`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.36.2`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.15.3`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`80.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	smart-open	`7.3.0.post1`	indirect
PyPI	smmap	`5.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.7`	indirect
PyPI	spacy-legacy	`3.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	spacy-loggers	`1.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	srsly	`2.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	sse-starlette	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	st-annotated-text	`4.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	st-theme	`1.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`0.46.2`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-camera-input-live	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-card	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-embedcode	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-faker	`0.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-image-coordinates	`0.1.9`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-keyup	`0.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-toggle-switch	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	streamlit-vertical-slider	`2.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	tenacity	`9.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	thinc	`8.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	toml	`0.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	tornado	`6.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`4.67.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2025.2`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	validators	`0.35.0`	indirect
PyPI	wasabi	`1.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	weasel	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	wrapt	`1.17.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 23

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 146 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 23 carry known advisories, of which 5 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pillow	`11.3.0`	direct	critical	36	`12.3.0`
gitpython	`3.1.44`	indirect	critical	51	`3.1.59`
mcp	`1.8.1`	direct	high	10	`1.28.1`
click	`8.1.8`	indirect	high	1	`8.3.3`
lxml	`6.0.0`	indirect	high	2	`6.1.0`
protobuf	`6.31.1`	indirect	high	2	`6.33.5`
pyarrow	`20.0.0`	indirect	high	2	`23.0.1`
pymdown-extensions	`10.16`	indirect	high	8	`11.0.1`
python-multipart	`0.0.20`	indirect	high	14	`0.0.31`
soupsieve	`2.7`	indirect	high	4	`2.8.4`
starlette	`0.46.2`	indirect	high	14	`1.3.1`
tornado	`6.5.1`	indirect	high	21	`6.5.8`
urllib3	`2.5.0`	indirect	high	8	`2.7.0`
diskcache	`5.6.3`	direct	moderate	2	—
requests	`2.32.4`	direct	moderate	2	`2.33.0`
streamlit	`1.46.1`	direct	moderate	4	`1.54.0`
fonttools	`4.58.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`4.60.2`
h2	`4.2.0`	indirect	moderate	4	`4.4.1`
idna	`3.10`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
pytest	`8.4.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
python-dotenv	`1.1.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`1.2.2`
setuptools	`80.9.0`	indirect	moderate	2	`83.0.0`
pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect	low	2	`2.20.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records