Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 18:53 UTC

sloria / TextBlob

Simple, Pythonic, text processing--Sentiment analysis, part-of-speech tagging, noun phrase extraction, translation, and more.

PythonMIT★ 9,543 stars⑂ 1,193 forkssince Jun 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#nlp#nltk#pattern#python#natural-language-processing

sloria/TextBlob holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (47/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Steve LoriaPersonal account
1,852 followers163 public repossince Sep 2012

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
PyPItextblob0.20.13,819,1206240 days agotextblobnlplinguisticsnltkpattern

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

89Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
27/36Commit cadence — 39/52 weeks with commits
16.2/18Commit volume — 62 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year62
human_commit_share0.15
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year39

Release discipline

54Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 4,718 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag0.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4,718
mean_days_between_releases6

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

89Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

98Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 9,543 stars
25/25Forks — 1,193 forks
13.3/15Watchers — 249 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,193
stars9,543
watchers249
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadgen.net, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 3,819,120 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestextblob
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,819,120
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 29 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled29
top_contributor_share0.84

Issue & PR responsiveness

57Moderate
How it's scored
31.9/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
20.8/30PR acceptance — 207/298 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs207
open_issues67
closed_issues212
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.76
closed_unmerged_prs91
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d2

Ownership & stewardship

73Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
23.5/25Owner reach — 1,852 followers of sloria
25/25Track record — 163 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,852
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsloria
public_repos163
account_age_days5,090
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 40 days ago
20/20Version history — 62 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestextblob
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish40

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://textblob.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnlp, nltk, pattern, python, natural-language-processing
has_wikino
homepagehttps://textblob.readthedocs.io/
docs_sitehttps://textblob.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

79Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

74Good
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 — 28 out of 28 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 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 — 18 commit(s) and 0 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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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_packages6
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:textblob@0.20.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

79Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 23 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.23

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.6/55Manageable file sizes — 1/38 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes64,448
source_files_sampled38
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

9,543GitHub stars
29contributors
62commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
67open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-19: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 9543 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 9,540 ★ / 1,193 ⇿
9,540Stars
1,193Forks

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-19. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,0009,5401,193242015-062021-012026-07

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 18:52 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-Tests28 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained18 commit(s) and 0 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInltk>=3.9pyproject.toml
All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 61 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInltk3.10.0direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIcachetools7.1.6indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.2indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjoblib1.5.3indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPInumpy2.2.6indirect
PyPInumpy2.4.6indirect
PyPInumpy2.5.1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.11.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.5.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIregex2026.7.19indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.1indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-issues6.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItextblob0.20.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItox4.58.0indirect
PyPItox-uv1.36.0indirect
PyPItox-uv-bare1.36.0indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuv0.12.1indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:textblob@0.20.1 pulls in 6 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 sloria/TextBlob. Read them side by side →

98PyThaiNLP/pythainlpThai natural language processing in PythonExceptional99huggingface/transformers🤗 Transformers: the model-definition framework for state-of-the-art machine learning models in text, vision, audio, and multimodal models, for both inference and training. Exceptional98data-privacy-stack/presidioAn open-source framework for detecting, redacting, masking, and anonymizing sensitive data (PII) across text, images, and structured data. Supports NLP, pattern matching, and customizable pipelines.Exceptional98autogluon/autogluonFast and Accurate ML in 3 Lines of CodeExceptional98huggingface/datasets🤗 The largest hub of ready-to-use datasets for AI models with fast, easy-to-use and efficient data manipulation toolsExceptional97modelscope/modelscopeModelScope: bring the notion of Model-as-a-Service to life.Exceptional

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 — PyPI.