Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-04 23:10 UTC

D4Vinci / Scrapling

🕷️ An adaptive Web Scraping framework that handles everything from a single request to a full-scale crawl!

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 72,554 stars⑂ 7,213 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolMCP serverhow this is determined

D4Vinci/Scrapling holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Karim shoairPersonal account
3,564 followers45 public repossince Jul 2016

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 932 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year932
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year50

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 50 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 9 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count50
latest_release_tagv0.4.12
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release9
mean_days_between_releases13.2
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?

95Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 72,554 stars
25/25Forks — 7,213 forks
13.5/15Watchers — 265 watchers
Inputs used
forks7,213
stars72,554
watchers265
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges9
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

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
0.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 29 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled29
top_contributor_share0.958
How it's scored
41.1/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
15.6/30PR acceptance — 99/190 decided PRs merged
3.9/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/10 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs99
open_issues3
closed_issues138
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d8
prs_decided_30d16
issue_closed_ratio0.979
closed_unmerged_prs91
first_time_authors_30d9
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d10
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach — 3,564 followers of D4Vinci
24.1/25Track record — 45 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,564
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginD4Vinci
public_repos45
account_age_days3,665
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 9 days ago
20/20Version history — 50 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesscrapling
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish9

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — ruff.toml, tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 5 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://scrapling.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscrawler, crawling, crawling-python, playwright, python, scraping, selectors, stealth, web-scraper, web-scraping, web-scraping-python, webscraping, xpath, automation, ai, ai-scraping, data, data-extraction, mcp, mcp-server
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://scrapling.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 5 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.3
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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages6
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:scrapling@0.4.12 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 79 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.79
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — ruff.toml, tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — scrapling/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsscrapling/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (scrapling/py.typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 1/118 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes97,511
source_files_sampled118
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files

Key facts

72,554GitHub stars
29contributors
932commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
50releases
1bus factor
3open 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 ★ / 7,213 ⇿
0Stars
7,213Forks
3Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

6,0006,2506,5006,7507,0007,2507,213472026-062026-072026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 3
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 23:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests4 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 4/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 25 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
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIlxml>=6.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIcssselect>=1.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIorjson>=3.11.8pyproject.toml
PyPItld>=0.13.2pyproject.toml
PyPIw3lib>=2.4.1pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensionspyproject.toml
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 29 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcssselectdirect
PyPIlxmldirect
PyPIorjsondirect
PyPItlddirect
PyPIw3libdirect
PyPIanyioindirect
PyPIapify-fingerprint-datapointsindirect
PyPIblackindirect
PyPIbrowserforgeindirect
PyPIclickindirect
PyPIcurl-cffiindirect
PyPIgriffe-inherited-docstringsindirect
PyPIgriffe-runtime-objectsindirect
PyPIgriffe-sphinxindirect
PyPIhttpbinindirect
PyPIipythonindirect
PyPImarkdownifyindirect
PyPImcpindirect
PyPImkdocstringsindirect
PyPImkdocstrings-pythonindirect
PyPImsgspecindirect
PyPIpatchright1.61.2indirect
PyPIplaywright1.61.0indirect
PyPIpngquantindirect
PyPIprotegoindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-asyncioindirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPIpytest-httpbin2.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdistindirect
PyPIscrapyindirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIwerkzeugindirect
PyPIzensicalindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:scrapling@0.4.12 pulls in 6 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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.