Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-08 19:33 UTC

simlist / pyluach

A Python package for manipulating Hebrew (Jewish) calendar dates and Hebrew-Gregorian conversion.

PythonCustom license★ 71 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Jun 2014View on GitHub ↗

simlist/pyluach holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (29/100). It was last updated 12 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Simcha ListPersonal account
1 follower14 public repossince Jun 2014Simlist Technologies LLC

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
PyPIpyluach2.3.05,117,17421332 days agohebrewcalendarjewishluachgregorianjuliandaysdatesdateconversionparshaholiday

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

50Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 12 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
12.1/18Commit volume — 21 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year21
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push12
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 15 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 332 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~172.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagv2.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release332
mean_days_between_releases172.6
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.9/60Stars — 71 stars
9/25Forks — 13 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks13
stars71
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescoveralls.io, github.com, readthedocs.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 5,117,174 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespyluach
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads5,117,174
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?

45Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.998
How it's scored
38.8/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
1.7/30PR acceptance — 1/18 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues1
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.923
closed_unmerged_prs17
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of simlist
20.6/25Track record — 14 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginsimlist
public_repos14
account_age_days4,437
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 332 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyluach
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish332

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/simlist/pyluach
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscalendar, hebrew-calendar, hebrew-date, jewish-calendar, jewish-holidays, jewish
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/simlist/pyluach
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 27 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate2.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): ci_tests, 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories54
affected_packages9
assessed_packages44
unassessed_packages2
affected_by_severityhigh 5, moderate 4
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 44 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

29At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — 0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes40,317
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

71GitHub stars
2contributors
21commits, last 12 months
12days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 13 ⇿
0Stars
13Forks
14Releases

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.

03581013151322019-032022-102026-05
Major 1Minor 7Patch 6

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.3 / 10
2.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 19:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities27 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIattrs22.2.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.11.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.11.2indirect
PyPIcertifi2022.12.7indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.0.1indirect
PyPIcoverage7.1.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.19indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.1.0indirect
PyPIflake86.0.0indirect
PyPIflit3.8.0indirect
PyPIflit-core3.8.0indirect
PyPIidna3.4indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata6.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.2indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.2indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPIpackaging23.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.0.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.10.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.0.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.14.0indirect
PyPIpyluach2.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest7.2.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov4.0.0indirect
PyPIpytz2022.7.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.28.2indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.3.2.post1indirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinx6.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-themeindirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme1.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.0.0indirect
PyPIurllib31.26.14indirect
PyPIzipp3.13.0indirect
Dependency advisories 9

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 44 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 9 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
certifi2022.12.7indirecthigh42024.7.4
idna3.4indirecthigh43.15
jinja23.1.2indirecthigh103.1.6
soupsieve2.3.2.post1indirecthigh42.8.4
urllib31.26.14indirecthigh162.7.0
pygments2.14.0indirectmoderate42.20.0
pytest7.2.1indirectmoderate29.0.3
requests2.28.2indirectmoderate82.33.0
zipp3.13.0indirectmoderate23.19.1

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.