Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 12:38 UTC

tmbo / questionary

Python library to build pretty command line user prompts ✨Easy to use multi-select lists, confirmations, free text prompts ...

PythonMIT★ 2,136 stars⑂ 117 forkssince Dec 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#hacktoberfest

tmbo/questionary holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Security (59/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Tom BocklischPersonal account
443 followers64 public repossince Oct 2011@RasaHQ @scalableminds

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
PyPIquestionary2.1.1-24323 days agocliuiinquirerquestionsprompt

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume — 50 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year50
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

50Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 22 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 323 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~198.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tag2.1.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release323
mean_days_between_releases198.8
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?

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

78Good
How it's scored
54/60Stars — 2,136 stars
17.2/25Forks — 117 forks
6.8/15Watchers — 18 watchers
Inputs used
forks117
stars2,136
watchers18
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 55 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled55
top_contributor_share0.426

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
31.9/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
23.2/30PR acceptance — 254/328 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs254
open_issues40
closed_issues127
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.76
closed_unmerged_prs74
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

68Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
19/25Owner reach — 443 followers of tmbo
25/25Track record — 64 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers443
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintmbo
public_repos64
account_age_days5,402
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 323 days ago
20/20Version history — 24 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesquestionary
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish323

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

59Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
3/7.5Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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.

62Moderate · 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)

86Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — questionary/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsquestionary/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (questionary/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/62 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes22,861
source_files_sampled62
oversized_source_files0

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 — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

2,136GitHub stars
55contributors
50commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
22releases
2bus factor
40open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 12:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4Vulnerabilities6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIprompt_toolkit>=2.0,<4.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.48direct
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIanyio4.12.1indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.16.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.12.14indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.1indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage6.5.0indirect
PyPIcoveralls3.3.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.9indirect
PyPIdocopt0.6.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.5indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.2indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild2024.10.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints3.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIstarlette0.52.1indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.40.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.36.1indirect
PyPIwatchfiles1.1.1indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.2.13indirect
PyPIwebsockets16.0indirect
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 tmbo/questionary. Read them side by side →

98pypa/pipxInstall and Run Python Applications in Isolated EnvironmentsExceptional97getsentry/sentry-cliA command line utility to work with Sentry.Exceptional98boa-dev/boaBoa is an embeddable Javascript engine written in Rust.Exceptional98facebook/astryxAn open source design system that's fully customizable and agent readyExceptional98podman-desktop/podman-desktopPodman Desktop is the best free and open source tool to work with Containers and Kubernetes for developers. Get an intuitive and user-friendly interface to effortlessly build, manage, and deploy containers and Kubernetes — all from your desktop.Exceptional98microsoft/aspireAspire is the tool for code-first, extensible, observable dev and deploy.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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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