Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 16:21 UTC

sokrypton / ColAbFold

Making Protein folding accessible to all!

Jupyter NotebookMIT★ 2,836 stars⑂ 732 forkssince Jul 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#bioinformatics#multiple-sequence-alignment#protein-structure#structure-prediction

sokrypton/ColAbFold holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on Security (37/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sergey OvchinnikovPersonal account
734 followers61 public repossince Apr 2013

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 publish
PyPIcolabfold1.6.212,25983 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
17.3/18Commit volume — 83 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year83
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~227.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv1.6.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases227.2
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?

80Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

90Excellent
How it's scored
56/60Stars — 2,836 stars
23.9/25Forks — 732 forks
9.6/15Watchers — 54 watchers
Inputs used
forks732
stars2,836
watchers54
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

78Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

68Good
How it's scored
54.5/80Monthly downloads — 12,259 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescolabfold
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads12,259
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?

68Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 39% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 42 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled42
top_contributor_share0.387

Issue & PR responsiveness

46Weak
How it's scored
18.3/42Issue resolution — 44% of issues closed
21.3/30PR acceptance — 88/124 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_prs88
open_issues393
closed_issues304
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.436
closed_unmerged_prs36
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

70Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20.6/25Owner reach — 734 followers of sokrypton
25/25Track record — 61 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers734
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsokrypton
public_repos61
account_age_days4,838
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 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 8 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescolabfold
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbioinformatics, multiple-sequence-alignment, protein-structure, structure-prediction
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?

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak
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
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 20 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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 — 34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

39Weak · 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)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Jupyter Notebook without a type-check config
53/55Manageable file sizes — 1/28 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJupyter Notebook
largest_source_bytes91,330
source_files_sampled28
oversized_source_files1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,836GitHub stars
42contributors
83commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
9releases
2bus factor
393open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 16:21 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
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIabsl-py^1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIjax>=0.5.2,<0.11pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib^3.8.4pyproject.toml
PyPIbiopython<1.86pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy^2.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas^2.2.2pyproject.toml
PyPIalphafold-colabfold2.3.18pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests^2.26.0pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm^4.62.2pyproject.toml
PyPIappdirs^1.4.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpy3Dmol^2.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPIdm-tree^0.1.9pyproject.toml
PyPIdm-haiku^0.0.16pyproject.toml
PyPIimportlib-metadata^8.6.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpdbfixer^1.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIopenmm^8.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIorjson^3.11.4pyproject.toml
All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIabsl-py1.4.0direct
PyPIalphafold-colabfold2.3.18direct
PyPIappdirs1.4.4direct
PyPIbiopython1.82direct
PyPIdm-haiku0.0.16direct
PyPIdm-tree0.1.9direct
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.0direct
PyPIjax0.5.3direct
PyPImatplotlib3.10.5direct
PyPInumpy2.2.6direct
PyPIopenmm8.4.0.post2direct
PyPIorjson3.11.7direct
PyPIpandas2.3.2direct
PyPIpdbfixer1.12.0direct
PyPIpy3dmol2.0.4direct
PyPIrequests2.31.0direct
PyPItqdm4.66.1direct
PyPIatomicwrites1.4.1indirect
PyPIattrs23.1.0indirect
PyPIblack23.12.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2023.11.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.3.2indirect
PyPIchex0.1.85indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcontextlib221.6.0indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.2indirect
PyPIcycler0.12.1indirect
PyPIfonttools4.47.0indirect
PyPIidna3.6indirect
PyPIimmutabledict4.2.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjaxlib0.5.3indirect
PyPIjmp0.0.4indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.4.5indirect
PyPIlegacy-cgi2.6.4indirect
PyPIml-collections0.1.1indirect
PyPIml-dtypes0.5.3indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPIopt-einsum3.3.0indirect
PyPIpackaging23.2indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpillow10.1.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.1.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.3.0indirect
PyPIpy1.11.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest6.2.5indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.8.2indirect
PyPIpytz2023.3.post1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1indirect
PyPIscipy1.15.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools69.0.3indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPItabulate0.9.0indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItoolz0.12.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItzdata2025.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.1.0indirect
PyPIwrapt1.16.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.0indirect
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 sokrypton/ColAbFold. Read them side by side →

90biopython/biopythonOfficial git repository for Biopython (originally converted from CVS)Excellent78elkins/synth-pdbGenerate realistic PDB files with mixed secondary structures for testing, education and bioinformatics tool development. Jupyter Notebook tutorials are available to visualize the concepts..Good71elkins-lab/synth-pdbGenerate realistic PDB files with mixed secondary structures for testing, education and bioinformatics tool development. Jupyter Notebook tutorials are available to visualize the concepts..Good69abhishektiwari/hbatHBAT 2: A Python Package to analyse Hydrogen Bonds and Other Non-covalent Interactions in Macromolecular Structures https://hbat-web.abhishek-tiwari.comGood57BioPandas/biopandasWorking with molecular structures in pandas DataFramesModerate42JinyuanSun/PymolFoldProtein folding in PymolWeak

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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