Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 07:09 UTC

tudborg / aiochannel

Channels (closable queues) for Python's asyncio

PythonNo license detected★ 41 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Dec 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

tudborg/aiochannel holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (60/100) and lowest on Security (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Henrik TudborgPersonal account
22 followers62 public repossince Feb 2010@wise-home

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
PyPIaiochannel1.4.084,472150 days agoasyncioaiochanchannelgochan

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

45Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

49Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume — 5 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

40Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 13 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 585 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~364.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv1.3.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release585
mean_days_between_releases364.4
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

31At Risk
How it's scored
26/60Stars — 41 stars
5/25Forks — 5 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars41
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

45Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

82Excellent
How it's scored
65.7/80Monthly downloads — 84,472 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesaiochannel
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads84,472
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

22At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.878

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 20/22 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs20
open_issues1
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs2
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

56Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.8/25Owner reach — 22 followers of tudborg
25/25Track record — 62 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers22
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintudborg
public_repos62
account_age_days6,008
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 15 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaiochannel
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

59Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

72Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

40Weak
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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_aggregate4.3
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.

54Moderate · 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)

66Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — aiochannel/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
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
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsaiochannel/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 (aiochannel/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes9,542
source_files_sampled12
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

41GitHub stars
5contributors
5commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 07:08 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
1CI-Tests3 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
3Maintained3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 36 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiounittest1.5.0indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIcachetools7.1.4indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.2indirect
PyPIdill0.4.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.30.3indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort6.1.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpydocstyle6.3.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpylama8.4.1indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.6indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.10.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-codeblocks0.18.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.4.4indirect
PyPIsetuptools80.10.2indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItox4.56.4indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools83.0.0.20260716indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.6.1indirect
PyPIwrapt2.2.2indirect
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 tudborg/aiochannel. Read them side by side →

95tortoise/tortoise-ormFamiliar asyncio ORM for python, built with relations in mindExceptional92nats-io/nats.pyPython3 client for NATSExcellent77mosquito/aiofileReal asynchronous file operations with asyncio support.Good69mosquito/caioLinux AIO c python bindingsGood99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99litestar-org/litestarLight, flexible and extensible ASGI framework | Built to scaleExceptional

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.