Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 05:55 UTC

wkentaro / gdown

Google Drive public file downloader when curl/wget fails.

PythonMIT★ 5,409 stars⑂ 427 forkssince Oct 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

wkentaro/gdown holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (82/100) and lowest on Security (66/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kentaro WadaPersonal account
2,548 followers358 public repossince May 2013

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
PyPIgdown6.1.03,469,2239589 days agocurldownloadgoogle-drivewget

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 9 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume154 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year154
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases24 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 89 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~96.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count24
latest_release_tagv6.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release89
mean_days_between_releases96.1
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?

78Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars5,409 stars
21.9/25Forks427 forks
7.2/15Watchers21 watchers
Inputs used
forks427
stars5,409
watchers21
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads3,469,223 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgdown
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads3,469,223
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth26 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled26
top_contributor_share0.863
How it's scored
41.2/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
21.8/30PR acceptance155/213 decided PRs merged
4.3/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs155
open_issues4
closed_issues193
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.98
closed_unmerged_prs58
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
24.5/25Owner reach2,548 followers of wkentaro
25/25Track record358 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,548
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginwkentaro
public_repos358
account_age_days4,866
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 89 days ago
20/20Version history95 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgdown
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish89

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgoogle-drive, wget, curl, download, downloader, python
has_wikino
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?

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages11
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:gdown@6.1.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 11 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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history96 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes388
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checkinggdown/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsgdown/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (gdown/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/17 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes15,768
source_files_sampled17
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5,409GitHub stars
26contributors
154commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
24releases
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 ★ / 427 ⇿
0Stars
427Forks
24Releases

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.

010020030040050041872017-112022-042026-08
Major 2Minor 7Patch 15

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 05:54 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
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIbeautifulsoup4pyproject.toml
PyPIfilelockpyproject.toml
PyPIrequestspyproject.toml
PyPItqdmpyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 48

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3direct
PyPIfilelock3.25.2direct
PyPIrequests2.33.1direct
PyPItqdm4.67.3direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.3.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdistro1.9.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIloguru0.7.3indirect
PyPImaison2.0.2indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdformat1.0.0indirect
PyPImdformat-gfm1.0.0indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.12.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpysocks1.7.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIrich14.3.3indirect
PyPIruff0.15.10indirect
PyPIruyaml0.91.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPItaplo0.9.3indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPIty0.0.29indirect
PyPItyper0.24.1indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItypos1.45.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.7.0indirect
PyPIwin32-setctime1.2.0indirect
PyPIyamlfix1.19.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:gdown@6.1.0 pulls in 11 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

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.

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 statisticsPyPI.