Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-24 01:52 UTC

sphuber / aiida-core

The official repository for the AiiDA code

PythonCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2017forkView on GitHub ↗
KindPluginCommand-line toolhow this is determined

sphuber/aiida-core holds a health index of 29 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (69/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (9/100). It was last updated 454 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

29
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

29
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 39 is calibrated to 34 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sebastiaan HuberPersonal account
36 followers50 public repossince Mar 2014

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
PyPIaiida-corepoints to another repo — not scored2.9.2-10720 days agoaiidaworkflows

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 454 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 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_year0
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push454
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

40Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 12 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,309 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~101.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv0.9.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release3,309
mean_days_between_releases101.8
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?

9Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

19Critical
How it's scored
0/22.5README
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_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges13
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, codecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

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)

76Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 64 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 43 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled64
top_contributor_share0.257

Issue & PR responsiveness

38Weak
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
17.1/30PR acceptance — 8/14 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_prs8
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs6
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

57Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.3/25Owner reach — 36 followers of sphuber
24.4/25Track record — 50 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers36
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsphuber
public_repos50
account_age_days4,572
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 11 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint], [tool.isort], [tool.yapf])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

35Weak
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

32At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

25At Risk
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 43 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
2.2/2.5License — 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 — 153 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate2.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

62Moderate
How it's scored
9.7/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: asyncssh 2.22.0 (high 8.1), click 8.2.2 (high 7.2), paramiko 3.5.1 (low 3.4)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
27.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 146 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories10
affected_packages3
assessed_packages76
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2, low 1
direct_affected_packages3
Matched the pypi:aiida-core@2.9.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 76 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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 88 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.907
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint], [tool.isort], [tool.yapf])
11/11Static type checking — aiida/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsaiida/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (aiida/py.typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 9/979 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes135,975
source_files_sampled979
oversized_source_files9

Key facts

0GitHub stars
64contributors
0commits, last 12 months
454days since last push
12releases
3bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • pypi package 'aiida-core' points at a different repository (https://github.com/aiidateam/aiida-core); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.5 / 10
2.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-24 01:51 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 43 contributing companies or organizations
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
0Vulnerabilities153 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 30
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIalembic~=1.2pyproject.toml
PyPIarchive-path~=0.4.2pyproject.toml
PyPIaio-pika~=6.6pyproject.toml
PyPIcircus~=0.18.0pyproject.toml
PyPIclick-config-file~=0.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIclick-spinner~=0.1.8pyproject.toml
PyPIclick~=8.1pyproject.toml
PyPIdisk-objectstore~=0.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIgraphviz~=0.13pyproject.toml
PyPIipython~=7.20pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2~=3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIjsonschema~=3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIkiwipy~=0.7.7pyproject.toml
PyPIimportlib-metadata~=4.3pyproject.toml
PyPIimportlib-resources~=5.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy~=1.19pyproject.toml
PyPIparamiko~=2.7,>=2.7.2pyproject.toml
PyPIplumpy~=0.21.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpgsu~=0.2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpsutil~=5.6pyproject.toml
PyPIpsycopg2-binary~=2.8pyproject.toml
PyPIpytz~=2021.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml~=6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests~=2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsqlalchemy~=1.4.22pyproject.toml
PyPItabulate~=0.8.5pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm~=4.45pyproject.toml
PyPIupf_to_json~=0.9.2pyproject.toml
PyPIwerkzeug<2.2pyproject.toml
PyPIwrapt~=1.11pyproject.toml
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 30 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaio-pika—direct
PyPIalembic—direct
PyPIarchive-path—direct
PyPIcircus—direct
PyPIclick—direct
PyPIclick-config-file—direct
PyPIclick-spinner—direct
PyPIdisk-objectstore—direct
PyPIgraphviz—direct
PyPIimportlib-metadata—direct
PyPIimportlib-resources—direct
PyPIipython—direct
PyPIjinja2—direct
PyPIjsonschema—direct
PyPIkiwipy—direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIparamiko—direct
PyPIpgsu—direct
PyPIplumpy—direct
PyPIpsutil—direct
PyPIpsycopg2-binary—direct
PyPIpytz—direct
PyPIpyyaml—direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIsqlalchemy—direct
PyPItabulate—direct
PyPItqdm—direct
PyPIupf-to-json—direct
PyPIwerkzeug—direct
PyPIwrapt—direct
Dependency advisories 3

Installing pypi:aiida-core@2.9.2 pulls in 76 packages, direct and transitive: 3 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
asyncssh2.22.0directhigh72.24.0
click8.2.2directhigh18.3.3
paramiko3.5.1directlow2—

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 sphuber/aiida-core. Read them side by side →

100aws/serverless-application-modelThe AWS Serverless Application Model (AWS SAM) transform is a AWS CloudFormation macro that transforms SAM templates into CloudFormation templates.Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional100run-llama/llama_indexLlamaIndex is the document processing platform for AIExceptional100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional100huggingface/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. 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.