Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-07 22:36 UTC

sonic182 / aiosonic

A very fast Python asyncio http and websockets client

PythonMIT★ 170 stars⑂ 23 forkssince Jul 2019View on GitHub ↗

#python #http #http-client #asyncio #websockets

sonic182/aiosonic holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (58/100). It was last updated today. 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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Johanderson MogollonPersonal account

43 followers48 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

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	aiosonic	1.1.0	738,177	81	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36	Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18	Commit volume — 50 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	50
human_commit_share	0.86
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	14

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 71 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~11.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	71
latest_release_tag	1.1.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	11.3

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?

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

51Moderate

How it's scored

36.1/60	Stars — 170 stars
11.2/25	Forks — 23 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	23
stars	170
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

65Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, github.com, readthedocs.org
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional

How it's scored

78.2/80	Monthly downloads — 738,177 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	aiosonic
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	738,177
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	12
top_contributor_share	0.963

Issue & PR responsiveness

60Moderate

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
10.2/30	PR acceptance — 185/544 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	185
open_issues	0
closed_issues	51
prs_merged_7d	3
prs_decided_7d	3
prs_merged_30d	5
prs_decided_30d	6
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	359
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

58Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.8/25	Owner reach — 43 followers of sonic182
24.3/25	Track record — 48 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	43
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	sonic182
public_repos	48
account_age_days	4,933

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 81 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	aiosonic
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
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://aiosonic.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	python, http, http-client, asyncio, websockets
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://aiosonic.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
docs_site	https://aiosonic.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
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?

68Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

60Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 23 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
2/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 26 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	55
affected_packages	8
assessed_packages	99
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 5, moderate 1, low 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 99 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.

65Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

64Moderate

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.6/40	Legible commit history — 30 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.349
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	4,816

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	package-lock.json, poetry.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.14

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 — 0/49 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	47,039
source_files_sampled	49
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

170GitHub stars

12contributors

50commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

71releases

1bus factor

0open issues

npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:aiosonic@1.1.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 23 ⇿

0Stars

23Forks

57Releases

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 1Minor 26Patch 30

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10

6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-07 22:36 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 2/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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	23 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
4	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0	Vulnerabilities	26 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`>=2.0.0,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	h2	`>=4.4.1,<5.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	onecache	`^0.8.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 99

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 94 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.2.0`	direct
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.3.2`	direct
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	direct
PyPI	h2	`4.4.1`	direct
PyPI	onecache	`0.8.1`	direct
npm	typescript	`5.7.3`	indirect
npm	ws	`8.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	aiodns	`4.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`0.7.12`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`0.7.16`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	asgiref	`3.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	backports-asyncio-runner	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2023.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2024.7.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.5.20`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.20.1`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hpack	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httptools	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	hyperframe	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`2.10`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.17`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`20.9`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`23.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	proxy-py	`2.4.10`	indirect
PyPI	pycares	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`2.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-sugar	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-timeout	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2021.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.33.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.14.14`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`4.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`7.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`7.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rtd-theme	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rtd-theme	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`1.0.8`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`1.0.6`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jquery	`4.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`1.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`1.1.10`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`1.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	termcolor	`3.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`1.26.5`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.38.0`	indirect
PyPI	uvloop	`0.22.1`	indirect
PyPI	winloop	`0.3.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 99 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
anyio	`4.13.0`	indirect	critical	4	`4.14.2`
certifi	`2023.7.22`	indirect	high	2	`2024.7.4`
idna	`2.10`	indirect	high	4	`3.15`
jinja2	`3.0.1`	indirect	high	10	`3.1.6`
urllib3	`1.26.5`	indirect	high	20	`2.8.0`
urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect	high	6	`2.8.0`
requests	`2.31.0`	indirect	moderate	6	`2.33.0`
pygments	`2.15.0`	indirect	low	3	`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 — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records