Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:41 UTC

tobgu / pyrsistent

Persistent/Immutable/Functional data structures for Python

Python · CMIT★ 2,192 stars⑂ 168 forkssince Jun 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#immutable#datastructures#python#functional

tobgu/pyrsistent holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Vitality (36/100). It was last updated 168 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Tobias GustafssonPersonal account
87 followers36 public repossince Nov 2010

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 publish
PyPIpyrsistent0.20.0-75996 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

36Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

26At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 168 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18Commit volume — 19 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_year19
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push168
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

50Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 75 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 188 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~216.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count75
latest_release_tagv0.21.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release188
mean_days_between_releases216.7
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?

67Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

81Excellent
How it's scored
54.2/60Stars — 2,192 stars
18.5/25Forks — 168 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 34 watchers
Inputs used
forks168
stars2,192
watchers34
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 76% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 67 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 40 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled67
top_contributor_share0.762

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
35.2/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance — 110/133 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs110
open_issues30
closed_issues156
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.839
closed_unmerged_prs23
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

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14/25Owner reach — 87 followers of tobgu
23.4/25Track record — 36 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers87
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintobgu
public_repos36
account_age_days5,721
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

69Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 996 days ago
20/20Version history — 75 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyrsistent
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish996

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsimmutable, datastructures, python, functional
has_wikiyes
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?

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak
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
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 40 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 29 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.7
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.

51Moderate · 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)

76Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — pyrsistent/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspyrsistent/py.typed
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

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pyrsistent/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/43 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes49,806
source_files_sampled43
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,192GitHub stars
67contributors
19commits, last 12 months
168days since last push
75releases
1bus factor
30open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 13:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests3 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 10/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 40 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities29 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIbabel2.13.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2023.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.3.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.18.1indirect
PyPIhypothesis—indirect
PyPIidna3.4indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.2indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.3indirect
PyPImemory-profiler0.57.0indirect
PyPIpackaging23.2indirect
PyPIpip—indirect
PyPIpip-tools—indirect
PyPIpsutil5.7.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.16.1indirect
PyPIpyperform—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIrequests2.31.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx7.2.6indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme1.3.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.7indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.5indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.6indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.9indirect
PyPItox—indirect
PyPItwine—indirect
PyPIurllib32.0.7indirect
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 tobgu/pyrsistent. Read them side by side →

100matplotlib/matplotlibmatplotlib: plotting with PythonExceptional100python-pillow/PillowPython Imaging Library (fork)Exceptional100ray-project/rayRay is an AI compute engine. Ray consists of a core distributed runtime and a set of AI Libraries for accelerating ML workloads.Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100reflex-dev/reflex🕸️ Web apps in pure Python 🐍Exceptional100scikit-learn/scikit-learnscikit-learn: machine learning in PythonExceptional

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.