Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-28 23:43 UTC

sign-language-processing / pose

Library for viewing, augmenting, and handling .pose files

PythonMIT★ 111 stars⑂ 29 forkssince Feb 2020View on GitHub ↗

sign-language-processing/pose holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (48/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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

Ownership

Sign Language ProcessingOrganization

158 followers42 public repossince Jan 2021

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	pose_format	0.14.1	-	51	21 days ago	pose-files pose-interpolation pose-augmentation

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 5 days ago
13.8/36	Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
15.9/18	Commit volume — 58 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 17 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	58
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	5
active_weeks_last_year	20

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 40 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 21 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~35.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	40
latest_release_tag	v0.14.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	21
mean_days_between_releases	35.9

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?

48Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

47Weak

How it's scored

33.1/60	Stars — 111 stars
12.1/25	Forks — 29 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	29
stars	111
watchers	3
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 (MIT)
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	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 66% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	12
top_contributor_share	0.659

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate

How it's scored

35/42	Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
15.9/30	PR acceptance — 87/164 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	87
open_issues	13
closed_issues	65
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.833
closed_unmerged_prs	77
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

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

Ownership & stewardship

69Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
15.8/25	Owner reach — 158 followers of sign-language-processing
23/25	Track record — 42 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	158
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	sign-language-processing
public_repos	42
account_age_days	2,024

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 21 days ago
20/20	Version history — 51 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	pose_format
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	21

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

72Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://pose-format.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://pose-format.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate

How it's scored

6.8/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 17 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.5

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	4
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:pose_format@0.14.1 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

36Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
35.7/40	Legible commit history — 67 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.67
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

73Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — src/js/pose_format/tsconfig.json, src/js/pose_viewer/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 26 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	src/js/pose_format/tsconfig.json, src/js/pose_viewer/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0.26
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/js/pose_format/tsconfig.json, src/js/pose_viewer/tsconfig.json)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/105 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	25,588
source_files_sampled	105
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

example_dirs	example, examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—

Key facts

111GitHub stars

12contributors

58commits, last 12 months

5days since last push

40releases

1bus factor

13open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 29 ⇿

0Stars

29Forks

33Releases

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 0Minor 7Patch 26

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10

5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-28 23:43 UTC

9	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9	CI-Tests	15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	17 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
2	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	numpy	`—`	src/python/pyproject.toml
PyPI	tqdm	`—`	src/python/pyproject.toml
PyPI	simple-video-utils	`—`	src/python/pyproject.toml

All dependencies 47

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 44 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	numpy	`—`	direct
PyPI	simple-video-utils	`—`	direct
PyPI	tqdm	`—`	direct
npm	@dimforge/rapier3d-compat	`0.12.0`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-arm64	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-x64	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-gnu	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-musl	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-gnu	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-musl	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-arm64-msvc	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-msvc	`4.34.9`	indirect
npm	@stencil/core	`4.39.0`	indirect
npm	@tweenjs/tween.js	`23.1.3`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`25.0.3`	indirect
npm	@types/stats.js	`0.17.3`	indirect
npm	@types/three	`0.182.0`	indirect
npm	@types/webxr	`0.5.21`	indirect
npm	@webgpu/types	`0.1.54`	indirect
npm	binary-parser	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`0.6.1`	indirect
npm	fflate	`0.8.2`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.25.7`	indirect
npm	meshoptimizer	`0.22.0`	indirect
npm	pose-format	`1.6.2`	indirect
npm	rollup-plugin-inject	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	rollup-plugin-node-polyfills	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	rollup-pluginutils	`2.8.2`	indirect
npm	sourcemap-codec	`1.4.8`	indirect
npm	three	`0.182.0`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.9.3`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`7.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	autodocsumm	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mediapipe	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mmcv	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mmdet	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mmengine	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mmpose	`—`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-needs	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rtd-theme	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-bibtex	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-plantuml	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tensorflow	`—`	indirect
PyPI	torch	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pose_format@0.14.1 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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Related records