Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-15 19:54 UTC

timlaing / pyicloud

A Python wrapper for accessing data from iCloud webservices, including Account, Find My, Calendar, Contacts, iCloud Drive, Photos, Hide My Email, Reminders, and Notes.

PythonMIT★ 173 stars⑂ 46 forkssince Dec 2024forkView on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#icloud #python3 #account #calendar #contacts #findmy #notes #photos #reminders #python

timlaing/pyicloud holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (50/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account 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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Tim LaingPersonal account

11 followers31 public repossince Feb 2015

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	Tags
PyPI	pyicloud	2026.10.1	54,361	46	0 days ago	icloud find-my-iphone

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

79Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.2/36	Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 203 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	203
human_commit_share	0.86
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	22

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 23 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~21.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	23
latest_release_tag	2026.10.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	21.7

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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

55Moderate

How it's scored

36.3/60	Stars — 173 stars
13.8/25	Forks — 46 forks
4.7/15	Watchers — 8 watchers

Inputs used

forks	46
stars	173
watchers	8
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	no
readme_badges	19
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io, sonarcloud.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

79Good

How it's scored

63.1/80	Monthly downloads — 54,361 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	pyicloud
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	54,361
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?

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

74Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 73 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	73
top_contributor_share	0.35

Issue & PR responsiveness

92Excellent

How it's scored

41.4/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
25.3/30	PR acceptance — 299/355 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 26/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

merged_prs	299
open_issues	1
closed_issues	67
prs_merged_7d	37
prs_decided_7d	42
prs_merged_30d	51
prs_decided_30d	57
issue_closed_ratio	0.985
closed_unmerged_prs	56
first_time_authors_30d	3
first_time_prs_merged_30d	4
first_time_prs_decided_30d	4

Ownership & stewardship

51Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
7.8/25	Owner reach — 11 followers of timlaing
23/25	Track record — 31 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	11
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	timlaing
public_repos	31
account_age_days	4,260

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 — 46 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	pyicloud
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

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 14 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 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	yes

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

0/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — pyicloud.readthedocs.org
0/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	icloud, python3, account, calendar, contacts, findmy, notes, photos, reminders, python
has_wiki	yes
homepage	pyicloud.readthedocs.org
docs_site	pyicloud.readthedocs.org
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	no

Security

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

78Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

73Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 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
6/7.5	Code-Review — Found 26/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — 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 — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	7.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	20
unassessed_packages	31
affected_by_severity	none
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 20 resolved dependencies against OSV. 31 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

73Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .github/instructions/sonarqube_mcp.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 84 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.977
agent_instruction_files	.github/instructions/sonarqube_mcp.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	7,244

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — devcontainer, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 23 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	yes
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.23
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.14

Code legibility for models

52Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.2/55	Manageable file sizes — 10/193 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	206,806
source_files_sampled	193
oversized_source_files	10

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — pyicloud/services/notes/protobuf/notes.proto, pyicloud/services/reminders/protobuf/reminders.proto, pyicloud/services/reminders/protobuf/versioned_document.proto
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	pyicloud/services/notes/protobuf/notes.proto, pyicloud/services/reminders/protobuf/reminders.proto, pyicloud/services/reminders/protobuf/versioned_document.proto
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

173GitHub stars

73contributors

203commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

23releases

3bus factor

1open issues

npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Community profile unavailable
deps.dev does not index pypi:pyicloud@2026.10.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 46 ⇿

0Stars

46Forks

21Releases

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 8Patch 8

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10

7.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-15 19:53 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
8	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	27 out of 27 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
8	Code-Review	Found 26/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10	Contributors	project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
0	Dangerous-Workflow	dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
1	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
8	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 51

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@opencode/cli	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-darwin-arm64	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-darwin-x64	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-darwin-x64-baseline	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-linux-arm64	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-linux-arm64-musl	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-linux-x64	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-linux-x64-baseline	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-linux-x64-baseline-musl	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-linux-x64-musl	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-windows-arm64	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-windows-x64	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@opencode/cli-windows-x64-baseline	`2.0.26`	indirect
npm	@prettier/plugin-xml	`3.4.2`	indirect
npm	@xml-tools/parser	`1.0.11`	indirect
npm	chevrotain	`7.1.1`	indirect
npm	prettier	`3.9.6`	indirect
npm	prettier-plugin-sort-json	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	regexp-to-ast	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	bbpb	`—`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`—`	indirect
PyPI	click	`—`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`—`	indirect
PyPI	fido2	`—`	indirect
PyPI	grpcio-tools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`—`	indirect
PyPI	keyrings-alt	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-typer2	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocstrings	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`—`	indirect
PyPI	prek	`—`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pylint	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pylint-strict-informational	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-socket	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-timeout	`—`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`—`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`—`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`—`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	srp	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tinyhtml	`—`	indirect
PyPI	typer	`—`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`—`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	indirect
PyPI	tzlocal	`5.3.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 20 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 31 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

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