Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 01:41 UTC

tree-sitter / tree-sitter-python

Python grammar for tree-sitter

JavaScript · CMIT★ 571 stars⑂ 253 forkssince Dec 2016View on GitHub ↗

tree-sitter/tree-sitter-python holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (32/100). It was last updated 37 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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

Ownership

tree-sitterOrganization

2,747 followers56 public repossince Feb 2016

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
Go	github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-python	v0.25.0	-	43	404 days ago	—
crates.io	tree-sitter-python	0.25.0	2,155,513	18	404 days ago	parsing python incremental tree-sitter text-editors parser-implementations
npm	tree-sitter-python	0.25.0	5,033,318	41	404 days ago	incremental parsing tree-sitter python
PyPI	tree-sitter-python	0.25.0	9,417,877	9	404 days ago	incremental parsing tree-sitter python

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

32At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

18Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 400 daysautomated commits excludedpull requests left unansweredissues left unansweredreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedOverall rating: At Risk ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 37 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	37
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

54Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 5 releases published
7.2/36	Release recency — latest release 404 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~76.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	5
latest_release_tag	v0.25.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	404
mean_days_between_releases	76.3

Community & Adoption

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

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

72Good

How it's scored

44.7/60	Stars — 571 stars
20/25	Forks — 253 forks
7/15	Watchers — 19 watchers

Inputs used

forks	253
stars	571
watchers	19
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	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	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 16,606,708 downloads/month across crates, go, npm, pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-python, tree-sitter-python, tree-sitter-python, tree-sitter-python
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates, go, npm, pypi
total_downloads	18,331,955
monthly_downloads	16,606,708
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?

71Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 32 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	32
top_contributor_share	0.481

Issue & PR responsiveness

69Good

How it's scored

35.2/42	Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
20.2/30	PR acceptance — 108/160 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

merged_prs	108
open_issues	29
closed_issues	150
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.838
closed_unmerged_prs	52
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

80Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
24.7/25	Owner reach — 2,747 followers of tree-sitter
24.8/25	Track record — 56 public repos, account ~10 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,747
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	tree-sitter
public_repos	56
account_age_days	3,903

Package maintenance

79Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 4 package(s) on crates, go, npm, pypi
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 404 days ago
20/20	Version history — 43 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-python, tree-sitter-python, tree-sitter-python, tree-sitter-python
ecosystems	crates, go, npm, pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	404

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
10/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/tree-sitter-python
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	tree-sitter, python, parser
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/tree-sitter-python
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 5 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 20 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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	20
affected_packages	7
assessed_packages	153
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 4, moderate 2
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 153 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

68Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 89 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.89
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

73Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
11/11	Static type checking — bindings/python/tree_sitter_python/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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	Cargo.lock, go.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	bindings/python/tree_sitter_python/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

81Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (bindings/python/tree_sitter_python/py.typed)
53.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/39 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	3,448,505
source_files_sampled	39
oversized_source_files	1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
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	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

571GitHub stars

32contributors

0commits, last 12 months

37days since last push

5releases

2bus factor

29open issues

crates.io, Go, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 253 ⇿

0Stars

253Forks

5Releases

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 0Minor 1Patch 4

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10

3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 01:40 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5	CI-Tests	5 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3	Code-Review	Found 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10	Contributors	project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
1	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	20 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	tree-sitter-language	`0.1`	Cargo.toml
Go	github.com/tree-sitter/go-tree-sitter	`v0.24.0`	go.mod
npm	node-addon-api	`^8.5.0`	package.json
npm	node-gyp-build	`^4.8.4`	package.json

All dependencies 153

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 149 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	tree-sitter-language	`0.1.5`	direct
Go	github.com/tree-sitter/go-tree-sitter	`0.24.0`	direct
npm	node-addon-api	`8.5.0`	direct
npm	node-gyp-build	`4.8.4`	direct
crates.io	aho-corasick	`1.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	cc	`1.2.36`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	find-msvc-tools	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.15.5`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`2.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.15`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.5`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.101`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.40`	indirect
crates.io	regex	`1.11.2`	indirect
crates.io	regex-automata	`0.4.10`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.8.6`	indirect
crates.io	ryu	`1.0.20`	indirect
crates.io	serde	`1.0.219`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.219`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.143`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`1.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	streaming-iterator	`0.1.9`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.106`	indirect
crates.io	tree-sitter	`0.25.9`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.18`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-pointer	`0.0.1`	indirect
npm	@es-joy/jsdoccomment	`0.49.0`	indirect
npm	@eslint-community/eslint-utils	`4.9.0`	indirect
npm	@eslint-community/regexpp	`4.12.1`	indirect
npm	@eslint/config-array	`0.21.0`	indirect
npm	@eslint/config-helpers	`0.3.1`	indirect
npm	@eslint/core	`0.15.2`	indirect
npm	@eslint/eslintrc	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	@eslint/js	`9.35.0`	indirect
npm	@eslint/object-schema	`2.1.6`	indirect
npm	@eslint/plugin-kit	`0.3.5`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/core	`0.19.1`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/node	`0.16.6`	indirect
npm	@humanwhocodes/module-importer	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	@humanwhocodes/retry	`0.3.1`	indirect
npm	@humanwhocodes/retry	`0.4.3`	indirect
npm	@pkgr/core	`0.1.1`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.6`	indirect
npm	@types/json-schema	`7.0.15`	indirect
npm	acorn	`8.15.0`	indirect
npm	acorn-jsx	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	ajv	`6.12.6`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	are-docs-informative	`0.0.2`	indirect
npm	argparse	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	base64-js	`1.5.1`	indirect
npm	bl	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`1.1.12`	indirect
npm	buffer	`5.7.1`	indirect
npm	callsites	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	chownr	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	comment-parser	`1.4.1`	indirect
npm	concat-map	`0.0.1`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.3.7`	indirect
npm	deep-is	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	end-of-stream	`1.4.4`	indirect
npm	es-module-lexer	`1.5.4`	indirect
npm	escape-string-regexp	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	eslint	`9.35.0`	indirect
npm	eslint-config-treesitter	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	eslint-plugin-jsdoc	`50.4.1`	indirect
npm	eslint-scope	`8.4.0`	indirect
npm	eslint-visitor-keys	`3.4.3`	indirect
npm	eslint-visitor-keys	`4.2.1`	indirect
npm	espree	`10.4.0`	indirect
npm	esquery	`1.6.0`	indirect
npm	esrecurse	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	estraverse	`5.3.0`	indirect
npm	esutils	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	fast-deep-equal	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	fast-json-stable-stringify	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	fast-levenshtein	`2.0.6`	indirect
npm	file-entry-cache	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	find-up	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	flat-cache	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	flatted	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	fs-constants	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`6.0.2`	indirect
npm	globals	`14.0.0`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	ieee754	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	ignore	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	import-fresh	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	imurmurhash	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	inherits	`2.0.4`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	js-yaml	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	jsdoc-type-pratt-parser	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	json-buffer	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	json-schema-traverse	`0.4.1`	indirect
npm	json-stable-stringify-without-jsonify	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	keyv	`4.5.4`	indirect
npm	levn	`0.4.1`	indirect
npm	locate-path	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.merge	`4.6.2`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	minimist	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	mkdirp-classic	`0.5.3`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	natural-compare	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	node-abi	`3.67.0`	indirect
npm	npm-run-path	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	once	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	optionator	`0.9.4`	indirect
npm	p-limit	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-locate	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	parent-module	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	parse-imports	`2.2.1`	indirect
npm	path-exists	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	prebuildify	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	prelude-ls	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	pump	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	punycode	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	readable-stream	`3.6.2`	indirect
npm	resolve-from	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	safe-buffer	`5.2.1`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.6.3`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	slashes	`3.0.12`	indirect
npm	spdx-exceptions	`2.5.0`	indirect
npm	spdx-expression-parse	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	spdx-license-ids	`3.0.20`	indirect
npm	string_decoder	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	strip-json-comments	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	synckit	`0.9.2`	indirect
npm	tar-fs	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	tar-stream	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	tree-sitter	`0.25.0`	indirect
npm	tree-sitter-cli	`0.25.9`	indirect
npm	tslib	`2.7.0`	indirect
npm	type-check	`0.4.0`	indirect
npm	uri-js	`4.4.1`	indirect
npm	util-deprecate	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	word-wrap	`1.2.5`	indirect
npm	wrappy	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	yocto-queue	`0.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 153 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
flatted	`3.3.1`	indirect	critical	2	`3.4.2`
brace-expansion	`1.1.12`	indirect	high	7	`5.0.12`
js-yaml	`4.1.0`	indirect	high	5	`4.3.2`
minimatch	`3.1.2`	indirect	high	3	`10.2.3`
tar-fs	`2.1.3`	indirect	high	1	`3.1.1`
@humanfs/node	`0.16.6`	indirect	moderate	1	`0.16.8`
ajv	`6.12.6`	indirect	moderate	1	`8.18.0`

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 — Go, crates.io, npm, PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records