Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 14:16 UTC

zackees / running-process

A python subprocess replacement written in rust - track zombie processes, launch PTY and more

Rust · PythonMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Sep 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

zackees/running-process holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (89/100) and lowest on Security (25/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
overall / 100
Good

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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Zachary VorhiesPersonal account
388 followers230 public repossince Mar 2014

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 publish
PyPIrunning_process4.10.1647,8487717 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 15 days ago
16.6/36Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,373 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,373
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push15
active_weeks_last_year24

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 44 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 17 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count44
latest_release_tag4.10.16
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release17
mean_days_between_releases4

Community & Adoption

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

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars8
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
62.4/80Monthly downloads — 47,848 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrunning_process
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads47,848
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.999
How it's scored
39.7/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance — 951/979 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs951
open_issues19
closed_issues326
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d58
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.945
closed_unmerged_prs28
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.6/25Owner reach — 388 followers of zackees
25/25Track record — 230 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers388
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginzackees
public_repos230
account_age_days4,612
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 17 days ago
20/20Version history — 77 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrunning_process
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 23 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .pylintrc, .rustfmt.toml, Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), clippy.toml, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), testbins/Cargo.toml ([lints])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/running-process/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscross-platform, process-management, pty, python, rust, subprocess, zombie-processes
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/running-process/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/running-process/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

25At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
25/25Dependency lockfiles — Cargo.lock, uv.lock
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
manifestsCargo.toml, pyproject.toml, requirements.testing.txt, testbins-tokio/Cargo.toml, testbins/Cargo.toml
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno

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.

89Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes28,763
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-platform-internal/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-probe-daemon/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .pylintrc, .rustfmt.toml, Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), clippy.toml, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), testbins/Cargo.toml ([lints])
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
8/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crates/running-process-platform-internal/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-probe-daemon/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-probe-interposer-linux/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-probe-interposer-macos/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-probe-interposer-windows/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-probe-worker/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-probe/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-protocol/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-py/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process-win-gnu-bridge/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/fuzz/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/tests/daemon-registration-consumer/pass/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/tests/daemon-registration-v2-consumer/fail-client/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/tests/daemon-registration-v2-consumer/pass/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/tests/frame-v1-codec-consumer/fail-first-party/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/tests/frame-v1-codec-consumer/fail-reserved/Cargo.toml, crates/running-process/tests/frame-v1-codec-consumer/pass/Cargo.toml, crates/test-watchdog/Cargo.toml, examples/custom-isolation/Cargo.toml, examples/minimal-consumer/Cargo.toml, examples/release-handles-cli/Cargo.toml, lints/running-process-env-literal/Cargo.toml, lints/running-process-platform-boundary/Cargo.toml, testbins-tokio/Cargo.toml, testbins/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 3/997 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes70,683
source_files_sampled997
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — crates/running-process-probe-daemon/proto/pprof/profile.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_capture.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_common.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_crash.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_envelope.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_profile.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_query.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_registration.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_symbols.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_admin.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_envelope.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_manifest.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_service_def.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_control.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_manifest.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_service_def.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_session.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/daemon.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/independent_spawn.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filescrates/running-process-probe-daemon/proto/pprof/profile.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_capture.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_common.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_crash.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_envelope.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_profile.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_query.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_registration.proto, crates/running-process-probe/proto/probe_diag_v1/probe_diag_v1_symbols.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_admin.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_envelope.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_manifest.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v1/broker_v1_service_def.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_control.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_manifest.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_service_def.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/broker_v2/broker_v2_session.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/daemon.proto, crates/running-process-protocol/proto/independent_spawn.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

8GitHub stars
2contributors
1,373commits, last 12 months
15days since last push
44releases
1bus factor
19open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'testbins' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'testbins-tokio' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
18Releases

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.

111222212026-072026-082026-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 17
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iotokio1testbins-tokio/Cargo.toml
crates.ioconsole-subscriber0.5testbins-tokio/Cargo.toml
crates.iorunning-process—testbins/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1testbins/Cargo.toml
crates.iolibc0.2testbins/Cargo.toml
crates.iointerprocess2testbins/Cargo.toml
crates.iomimalloc-pprof0.9testbins/Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 statistics — PyPI.