Public record
Software health reportschema 0.29.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-02 22:21 UTC

tmolteno / python-necpp

PyPI module for nec2++

Python · SWIGGPL-2.0★ 80 stars⑂ 30 forkssince Mar 2015View on GitHub ↗

tmolteno/python-necpp holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

Tim MoltenoPersonal account
78 followers63 public repossince May 2009University of Otago

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
PyPIPyNEC2.3.45,217140 days agonec2nec2++antennaelectromagnetismradio
PyPInecpp2.3.44,340220 days agonec2nec2++antennaelectromagnetismradio

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
16.1/18Commit volume — 61 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year61
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year5

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv2.3.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases3.1
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.8/60Stars — 80 stars
12.2/25Forks — 30 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks30
stars80
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.1/80Monthly downloads — 9,557 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesPyNEC, necpp
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads9,557
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.905
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 8/8 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs8
open_issues0
closed_issues26
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.6/25Owner reach — 78 followers of tmolteno
25/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers78
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logintmolteno
public_repos63
account_age_days6,285
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 22 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesPyNEC, necpp
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

49Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
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 — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16.6/40Legible commit history — 29 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.312
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, PyNEC/Makefile, PyNEC/tests/Makefile, necpp/Makefile, necpp/example/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, PyNEC/Makefile, PyNEC/tests/Makefile, necpp/Makefile, necpp/example/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/38 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes10,930
source_files_sampled38
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files

Key facts

80GitHub stars
6contributors
61commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:PyNEC@2.3.4; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 30 ⇿
0Stars
30Forks

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.

0510152025302812015-122021-022026-04

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-02 22:20 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpyPyNEC/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpydirect
PyPImatplotlibindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPIscipyindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

Raw JSON report machine-readable

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.29.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.