Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-03 11:53 UTC

troycomi / reportseff

Tabular seff

PythonMIT★ 96 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Jun 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

troycomi/reportseff holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (72/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (46/100). It was last updated 110 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Troy ComiPersonal account
20 followers39 public repossince Oct 2016Princeton University

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
PyPIreportseff2.10.3-38125 days agoslurmseff

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

30At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 110 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18Commit volume — 20 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year20
human_commit_share0.81
days_since_last_push110
active_weeks_last_year12

Release discipline

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 37 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 125 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~60.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count37
latest_release_tagv2.10.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release125
mean_days_between_releases60.4
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak
How it's scored
32.1/60Stars — 96 stars
9/25Forks — 13 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks13
stars96
watchers3
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

32At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 91% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.906

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good
How it's scored
36.9/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
24.4/30PR acceptance — 48/59 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs48
open_issues4
closed_issues29
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.879
closed_unmerged_prs11
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.

Ownership & stewardship

54Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.5/25Owner reach — 20 followers of troycomi
23.7/25Track record — 39 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintroycomi
public_repos39
account_age_days3,572
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 125 days ago
20/20Version history — 38 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesreportseff
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish125

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

86Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

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?

57Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:reportseff@2.10.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 packages. 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 63 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.778
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.19

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes48,244
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

96GitHub stars
8contributors
20commits, last 12 months
110days since last push
37releases
1bus factor
4open issues
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 ★ / 13 ⇿
0Stars
13Forks
34Releases

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.

03581013151312021-042023-092026-02
Major 1Minor 9Patch 24

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-03 11:53 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
6CI-Tests14 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIclick>=6.7pyproject.toml
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIclick8.3.1direct
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIimmutabledict4.3.0indirect
PyPIimportlab0.8.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibcst1.8.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.7.8indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImsgspec0.20.0indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInetworkx3.4.2indirect
PyPInetworkx3.6.1indirect
PyPIninja1.13.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpastel0.2.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpoethepoet0.41.0indirect
PyPIpycnite2024.7.31indirect
PyPIpydot4.0.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytype2024.10.11indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-ft8.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.0indirect
PyPItabulate0.9.0indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItypeguard4.4.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:reportseff@2.10.3 pulls in 1 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with troycomi/reportseff. Read them side by side →

93skypilot-org/skypilotRun, manage, and scale AI workloads on any AI infrastructure. Use one system to access & manage all AI compute (Kubernetes, Slurm, 20+ clouds, on-prem).Exceptional89meta-pytorch/torchxTorchX is a universal job launcher for PyTorch applications. TorchX is designed to have fast iteration time for training/research and support for E2E production ML pipelines when you're ready.Excellent84pipefunc/pipefuncLightweight fast function pipeline (DAG) creation in pure Python for scientific (HPC) workflows 🕸️🧪Excellent78iowarp/clio-kitBringing AI practically to science!Good60PursuitOfDataScience/slurmwatchLive per-process CPU / memory / GPU telemetry for a running Slurm job — see whether you're actually using what you requested.Moderate80mahendrapaipuri/batchjob_monitoringA Prometheus exporter and a REST API server to export metrics of compute units of resource managers like SLURM, LSF, Openstack, k8sExcellent

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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