Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 09:26 UTC

the-academic-observatory / academic-observatory-workflows

Telescopes, Workflows and Data Services for the Academic Observatory

Python · JinjaApache-2.0★ 18 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Aug 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#science#workflow#data#academic#higher-education#research-evaluation

the-academic-observatory/academic-observatory-workflows holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (95/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The Academic ObservatoryOrganization
10 followers19 public repossince Sep 2019

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIacademic-observatory-workflows2022.3.0-31584 days agosciencedataworkflowsacademic-institutesacademic-observatory-workflows

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

75Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 6 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
14.6/18Commit volume — 41 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year41
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year25

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 42 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count42
latest_release_tagv0.20.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases4.4

Community & Adoption

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

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

23At Risk
How it's scored
20/60Stars — 18 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars18
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

57Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 45% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.448

Issue & PR responsiveness

87Excellent
How it's scored
35.7/42Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance — 245/272 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs245
open_issues3
closed_issues17
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.85
closed_unmerged_prs27
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

74Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
7.5/25Owner reach — 10 followers of The-Academic-Observatory
21.5/25Track record — 19 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers10
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginThe-Academic-Observatory
public_repos19
account_age_days2,502
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

61Moderate
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,584 days ago
12/20Version history — 3 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesacademic-observatory-workflows
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,584

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

95Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://academic-observatory-workflows.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsscience, workflow, data, academic, higher-education, research-evaluation
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://academic-observatory-workflows.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://academic-observatory-workflows.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

1Critical
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsacademic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml, docs/requirements.txt, requirements.txt
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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.

50Moderate · 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)

85Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 2/132 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes131,884
source_files_sampled132
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

18GitHub stars
11contributors
41commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
42releases
2bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIxmltodict>=1.0,<2academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIbackoff>=2,<3academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIratelimit>=2.2.0,<3academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas>=1.3,<3academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4>=4.9.3,<5academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIboto3>=1.15.0,<2academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPInltk>=3.9.1,<4academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIDeprecated>=1,<2academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIlimits>=5,<6academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIbiopython>=1.81,<2academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIglom>=23.0.0,<24academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIbigquery-schema-generator>=1.6.1,<2academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIdeepdiff>=8,<9academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml>=5,<6academic-observatory-workflows/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbackoff—direct
PyPIbeautifulsoup4—direct
PyPIbigquery-schema-generator—direct
PyPIbiopython—direct
PyPIboto3—direct
PyPIdeepdiff—direct
PyPIdeprecated—direct
PyPIglom—direct
PyPIlimits—direct
PyPIlxml—direct
PyPInltk—direct
PyPInltk3.*direct
PyPIpandas—direct
PyPIratelimit—direct
PyPIxmltodict—direct
PyPImyst-parser2.0.0indirect
PyPIpbr5.5.*indirect
PyPIrecommonmark0.7.*indirect
PyPIsix1.16.*indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autoapi—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme1.3.0indirect
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 the-academic-observatory/academic-observatory-workflows. Read them side by side →

100PrefectHQ/prefectPrefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python.Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional94akfamily/akshareAKShare is an elegant and simple financial data interface library for Python, built for human beings! 开源财经数据接口库Exceptional94earth-mover/icechunkOpen-source, cloud-native transactional tensor storage engineExceptional89Unidata/netcdf4-pythonnetcdf4-python: python/numpy interface to the netCDF C libraryExcellent89flyteorg/flytekitExtensible Python SDK for developing Flyte tasks and workflows. Simple to get started and learn and highly extensible. Excellent

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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