Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 14:09 UTC

wolph / python-progressbar

Progressbar 2 - A progress bar for Python 2 and Python 3 - "pip install progressbar2"

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 879 stars⑂ 106 forkssince Feb 2012View on GitHub ↗

KindDesktop applicationCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#python #progressbar #progress-bar #rate #eta #percentage #console #terminal #time #progress #bar #cli #gui #library

wolph/python-progressbar holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100). It was last updated 12 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rick van HattemPersonal account

297 followers286 public repossince May 2010

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	progressbar2	4.6.0	19,969,313	111	13 days ago	repl animated bar color console duration efficient elapsed eta feedback live meter monitor monitoring multi-threaded progress progress-bar progressbar progressmeter python rate simple speed spinner stats terminal throughput time visual

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

65Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 12 days ago
8.3/36	Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 173 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	173
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	12
active_weeks_last_year	12

Release discipline

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 52 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 13 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~155 days
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 4 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	52
latest_release_tag	v4.6.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	13
mean_days_between_releases	155

Community & Adoption

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

81Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

72Good

How it's scored

47.7/60	Stars — 879 stars
16.8/25	Forks — 106 forks
7/15	Watchers — 19 watchers

Inputs used

forks	106
stars	879
watchers	19
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

78Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
7.2/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	yes
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	coveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 19,969,313 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	progressbar2
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	19,969,313
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

35Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 45 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 40 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	45
top_contributor_share	0.891

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good

How it's scored

41.8/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
25.6/30	PR acceptance — 81/95 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	81
open_issues	1
closed_issues	228
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.996
closed_unmerged_prs	14
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

66Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.8/25	Owner reach — 297 followers of wolph
25/25	Track record — 286 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	297
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	wolph
public_repos	286
account_age_days	5,955

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 13 days ago
20/20	Version history — 111 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	progressbar2
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	13

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — ruff.toml, tox.ini
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://progressbar-2.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 14 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	python, progressbar, progress-bar, rate, eta, percentage, console, terminal, time, progress, bar, cli, gui, library
has_wiki	yes
homepage	http://progressbar-2.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
docs_site	http://progressbar-2.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

59Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 40 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
4.5/7.5	Signed-Releases — 4 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	5.9

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	2
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:progressbar2@4.6.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

81Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.98
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	570

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — ruff.toml, tox.ini
11/11	Static type checking — progressbar/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
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	progressbar/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

81Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (progressbar/py.typed)
54.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/161 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	80,586
source_files_sampled	161
oversized_source_files	2

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 — demos, examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	demos, 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

879GitHub stars

45contributors

173commits, last 12 months

12days since last push

52releases

1bus factor

1open 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 ★ / 106 ⇿

0Stars

106Forks

51Releases

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 1Minor 23Patch 27

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10

5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 14:08 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 40 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
6	Signed-Releases	4 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	python-utils	`>= 3.8.1`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 56 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	python-utils	`3.9.1`	direct
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	alive-progress	`3.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.5.20`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	dill	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	freezegun	`1.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`—`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib	`3.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	numpy	`2.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	playwright	`1.62.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyee	`13.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`312`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	speedups	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	speedups	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`4.68.3`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:progressbar2@4.6.0 pulls in 2 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.

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 — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records