Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-14 07:31 UTC

zaebee / codegraph-brain

Code graph for AI agents: impact analysis and call tracing over MCP (Python, TypeScript). Local, deterministic, SQLite.

PythonMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolMCP serverLibraryWeb interfacehow this is determined

zaebee/codegraph-brain holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Andrey GromovPersonal account
13 followers90 public repossince Jun 2010

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
PyPIcodegraph-brain0.29.02,281380 days agoai-agentsarchitecturecall-graphcode-graphcode-reviewllmmcpmodel-context-protocolstatic-analysistree-sitter

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9/36Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 408 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year408
human_commit_share0.6
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 42 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count42
latest_release_tagcodegraph-brain-v0.29.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.9
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?

39Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.8/80Monthly downloads — 2,281 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescodegraph-brain
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,281
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?

55Moderate · 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
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
35.5/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
29.5/30PR acceptance — 392/398 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs392
open_issues30
closed_issues164
prs_merged_7d19
prs_decided_7d19
prs_merged_30d44
prs_decided_30d45
issue_closed_ratio0.845
closed_unmerged_prs6
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
8.2/25Owner reach — 13 followers of zaebee
25/25Track record — 90 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginzaebee
public_repos90
account_age_days5,964
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 — 38 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescodegraph-brain
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.js, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/codegraph-brain/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-agents, call-graph, claude-code, code-graph, mcp, mcp-server, python, static-analysis, tree-sitter, typescript
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/codegraph-brain/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/codegraph-brain/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
4/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages121
unassessed_packages30
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 121 resolved dependencies against OSV. 30 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

92Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md, ui/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 60 of 60 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md, ui/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,463
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.js, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/cgis/py.typed, ui/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 59 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/cgis/py.typed, ui/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.59
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/cgis/py.typed, ui/tsconfig.json)
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 6/304 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes89,755
source_files_sampled304
oversized_source_files6
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2GitHub stars
1contributors
408commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
42releases
1bus factor
30open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:codegraph-brain@0.29.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-14 07:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests25 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
8SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
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 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIhttpx>=0.27pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.13.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml>=6.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=15.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIstructlog>=25.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter>=0.25.2pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-python>=0.25.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-typescript>=0.23.2pyproject.toml
PyPItyper>=0.26.7pyproject.toml
npm@xyflow/react^12.4.4ui/package.json
npmdagre^0.8.5ui/package.json
npmhtml-to-image^1.11.13ui/package.json
npmreact^19.2.7ui/package.json
npmreact-dom^19.2.7ui/package.json
npmreact-error-boundary^6.1.2ui/package.json
npmzustand^5.0.14ui/package.json
All dependencies 151

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 134 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@xyflow/react^12.4.4direct
npmdagre^0.8.5direct
npmhtml-to-image^1.11.13direct
npmreact^19.2.7direct
npmreact-dom^19.2.7direct
npmreact-error-boundary^6.1.2direct
npmzustand^5.0.14direct
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPImcp2.0.0direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.4direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPIstructlog25.5.0direct
PyPItree-sitter0.25.2direct
PyPItree-sitter-python0.25.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-typescript0.23.2direct
PyPItyper0.26.7direct
npm@eslint/js^9.0.0indirect
npm@happy-dom/global-registrator^20.10.2indirect
npm@testing-library/dom^10.4.1indirect
npm@testing-library/jest-dom^6.9.1indirect
npm@testing-library/react^16.3.2indirect
npm@types/dagre^0.7.54indirect
npm@types/react^19.2.17indirect
npm@types/react-dom^19.2.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin^8.60.1indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/parser^8.60.1indirect
npm@vitejs/plugin-react^6.0.2indirect
npmeslint^9.0.0indirect
npmeslint-config-prettier^10.1.8indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react^7.37.5indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react-hooks^7.1.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react-refresh^0.5.2indirect
npmhappy-dom^20.10.2indirect
npmjsdom^29.1.1indirect
npmprettier^3.8.3indirect
npmrollup-plugin-visualizer^7.0.1indirect
npmtypescript^6.0.3indirect
npmvite^8.0.16indirect
npmvitest^4.1.8indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.5.20indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.4.1indirect
PyPIcodegraph-brain0.29.0indirect
PyPIcohere7.0.3indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.1indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIdecorator5.3.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.2indirect
PyPIdistro1.9.0indirect
PyPIduckdb1.5.3indirect
PyPIeval-type-backport0.4.0indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.1indirect
PyPIfastavro1.12.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.1indirect
PyPIfsspec2026.4.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth2.53.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-genai2.8.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhf-xet1.5.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.12.0indirect
PyPIhttpx22.12.0indirect
PyPIhttpx2-jsfetch1.0indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub1.16.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIinterrogate1.7.0indirect
PyPIipdb0.13.13indirect
PyPIipython9.14.1indirect
PyPIipython-pygments-lexers1.1.1indirect
PyPIjedi0.20.0indirect
PyPIjsonpath-python1.1.6indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.2.2indirect
PyPImcp-types2.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImistralai2.4.9indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInetworkx3.6.1indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIollama0.6.2indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.39.1indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-semantic-conventions0.60b1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIparso0.8.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.52indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.3indirect
PyPIpy1.11.0indirect
PyPIpyasn10.6.4indirect
PyPIpyasn1-modules0.4.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.15.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.1indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32312indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.5.1indirect
PyPIruff0.15.16indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.4.4indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPItabulate0.10.0indirect
PyPItenacity9.1.4indirect
PyPItokenizers0.23.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.68.1indirect
PyPItraitlets5.15.1indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.33.0.20260518indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.49.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.13indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.0indirect
PyPIwebsockets16.0indirect
PyPIzipp4.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 121 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 30 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
fsspec2026.4.0indirecthigh12026.6.0

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 statistics — PyPI.