Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 04:27 UTC

MartenBE / mkslides

Use mkslides to easily turn markdown files into beautiful slides using the power of Reveal.js!

PythonMIT★ 475 stars⑂ 20 forkssince Aug 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

MartenBE/mkslides holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (94/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (36/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MartijnPersonal account
12 followers6 public repossince Jul 2012

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
PyPImkslides2.0.202,987355 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
9/36Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 119 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year119
human_commit_share0.92
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~37.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tag2.0.20
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases37.3
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?

66Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.4/60Stars — 475 stars
10.7/25Forks — 20 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks20
stars475
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
46.3/80Monthly downloads — 2,987 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmkslides
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,987
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.983
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance — 38/43 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs38
open_issues0
closed_issues47
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
8/25Owner reach — 12 followers of MartenBE
18.2/25Track record — 6 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers12
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginMartenBE
public_repos6
account_age_days5,179
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 5 days ago
20/20Version history — 35 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmkslides
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://martenbe.github.io/mkslides/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmarkdown, markdown-to-html, mkdocs, site-generator, slides, slideshow
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://martenbe.github.io/mkslides/
docs_sitehttps://martenbe.github.io/mkslides/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no 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
6.8/7.5Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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_packages30
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:mkslides@2.0.20 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 30 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.8/40Legible commit history — 10 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.109
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.08
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/34 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes21,891
source_files_sampled34
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

475GitHub stars
6contributors
119commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 20 ⇿
0Stars
20Forks
7Releases

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.

0481216202022024-112025-082026-06
Major 0Minor 0Patch 7

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 04:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIbeautifulsoup4>=4.14.2pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.3.1pyproject.toml
PyPIemoji>=2.15.0pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2>=3.1.6pyproject.toml
PyPIjsonschema>=4.25.1pyproject.toml
PyPIlivereload>=2.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdown>=3.10pyproject.toml
PyPInatsort>=8.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIomegaconf>=2.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-frontmatter>=1.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml>=6.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=14.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPItreelib>=1.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPItypes-beautifulsoup4>=4.12.0.20250516pyproject.toml
PyPItypes-markdown>=3.10.0.20251106pyproject.toml
All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIclick8.5.0direct
PyPIemoji2.15.0direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0direct
PyPIlivereload2.7.1direct
PyPImarkdown3.10.3direct
PyPInatsort8.4.0direct
PyPIomegaconf2.3.1direct
PyPIpython-frontmatter1.3.0direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPItreelib1.8.0direct
PyPItypes-beautifulsoup44.12.0.20250516direct
PyPItypes-markdown3.10.2.20260712direct
PyPIantlr4-python3-runtime4.9.3indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.11.1indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIboolean-py5.0indirect
PyPIbumpver2026.1132indirect
PyPIcachebox5.2.3indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdeepdiff9.1.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIlexid2021.1006indirect
PyPIlibrt0.15.0indirect
PyPIlicense-expression30.4.4indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImkslides2.0.20indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIorderly-set5.5.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-debian1.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-magic0.4.27indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIreuse6.2.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIruff0.16.6indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9.2indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItornado6.5.8indirect
PyPItypes-html5lib1.1.11.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260906indirect
PyPItypes-webencodings0.6.0.20260907indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mkslides@2.0.20 pulls in 30 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.

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.