MaintainerPulse

temporal prediction of dependency maintenance risk

asyncclick python-trio/asyncclick ● elevated

54%

no release in the next 12 months

53%

new issues will go unanswered (30 days)

100%

maintainer activity collapse within 12 months

32%

chance of a release within 12 months (survival model)

Model risk over time

calibrated P(no release next 12mo) at each historical monthly snapshot

Repository activity, last 36 months

pushes issues PyPI release

What drives this score

TreeSHAP contributions; raises risk / lowers risk

Survival curve

P(still no release) m months ahead, discrete-time hazard model

What if? — poke the model

drag a signal and the deployed models rescore this package live (implied signals move together — two years without a release also zeroes "releases, last 12mo"). The needle tracks the activity-collapse model, a logistic regression: monotone by construction, so it responds smoothly to counterfactuals where the tree models step.

maintainer activity collapse, 12mo

In plain words

bus factor: one person makes 100% of pushes

Maintained alternatives

similar packages with low predicted risk; ranked by summary similarity blended with shared-dependents overlap, validated against known migrations

package	what it is	similarity	its 12mo risk
click	Composable command line interface toolkit	0.62	6%
asyncstdlib	The missing async toolbox	0.57	19%
aiohttp	Async http client/server framework (asyncio)	0.45	1%
uvloop	Fast implementation of asyncio event loop on top of libuv	0.45	29%

Signals at the latest snapshot

days since last release	124	releases, last 12mo	1
people pushing, last 12mo	1	bus factor (top pusher share)	100%
issues opened, last 12mo	0	30-day response rate	no issues
stars accumulated	116	open vulns without fix	0

Probabilities are isotonic-calibrated on a held-out validation year and evaluated on future snapshots the models never saw (PR-AUC 0.894, precision@50 = 1.00 on the headline target).