Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 12:44 UTC

RDFLib / rdflib

RDFLib is a Python library for working with RDF, a simple yet powerful language for representing information.

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 2,478 stars⑂ 598 forkssince Feb 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#rdflib#semantic-web#linked-data#python#pypi#ntriples#rdf-xml#json-ld#turtle#turtle-rdf#rdf#n3#nquads#serializer#parser#namespace#graph#uri#python-library#sparql

RDFLib/rdflib holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (100/100) and lowest on Security (56/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 4 contributors account 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

RDFlibOrganization
195 followers39 public repossince Feb 2012

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIrdflib7.6.0-40155 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
16.5/18Commit volume — 68 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year68
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 155 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~102.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tag7.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release155
mean_days_between_releases102.9

Community & Adoption

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

90Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

89Excellent
How it's scored
55.1/60Stars — 2,478 stars
23.1/25Forks — 598 forks
10.5/15Watchers — 77 watchers
Inputs used
forks598
stars2,478
watchers77
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

85Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

84Excellent
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 92 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.222

Issue & PR responsiveness

70Good
How it's scored
32.4/42Issue resolution — 77% of issues closed
22.6/30PR acceptance — 1,420/1,881 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs1,420
open_issues307
closed_issues1,033
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.771
closed_unmerged_prs461
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

88Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
16.5/25Owner reach — 195 followers of RDFLib
23.7/25Track record — 39 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers195
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginRDFLib
public_repos39
account_age_days5,279
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 155 days ago
20/20Version history — 40 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrdflib
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish155

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

100Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://rdflib.readthedocs.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrdflib, semantic-web, linked-data, python, pypi, ntriples, rdf-xml, json-ld, turtle, turtle-rdf, rdf, n3, nquads, serializer, parser, namespace, graph, uri, python-library, sparql
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://rdflib.readthedocs.org
docs_sitehttps://rdflib.readthedocs.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: InProgress
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 92 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 27 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

87Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — rdflib/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesTaskfile.yml, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsrdflib/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

81Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (rdflib/py.typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 9/537 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes424,141
source_files_sampled537
oversized_source_files9

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,478GitHub stars
100contributors
68commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
22releases
4bus factor
307open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 12:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
4Code-ReviewFound 8/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 92 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained18 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
8Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities27 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIisodate>=0.7.2,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyparsing>=2.1.0,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIberkeleydb^18.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPInetworkx>=2,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIhtml5rdf>=1.2,<2pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml>=4.3,<6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIorjson>=3.9.14,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx^0.28.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 80

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 71 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIberkeleydb18.1.10direct
PyPIhtml5rdf1.2.1direct
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPIisodate0.7.2direct
PyPIlxml5.4.0direct
PyPInetworkx3.1direct
PyPIorjson3.10.15direct
PyPIpyparsing3.0.9direct
PyPIpyparsing3.1.4direct
PyPIanyio4.5.2indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs5.7.post1indirect
PyPIblack24.8.0indirect
PyPIbracex2.6indirect
PyPIbuild1.2.2.post1indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.10.5indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.1indirect
PyPIdocker7.1.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffe1.14.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlxml-stubs0.5.1indirect
PyPImarkdown3.7indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.3indirect
PyPImkdocs-gen-files0.5.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-include-markdown-plugin7.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.6indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings0.26.2indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python1.13.0indirect
PyPImypy1.14.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpip25.0.1indirect
PyPIpip-tools7.5.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpoetry1.8.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.15indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.5indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.1indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIpywin32311indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag0.1indirect
PyPIrdflib7.6.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.4indirect
PyPIruff0.15.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools71.1.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPItestcontainers4.13.3indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools71.1.0.20240818indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIwatchdog4.0.2indirect
PyPIwcmatch10.1indirect
PyPIwheel0.45.1indirect
PyPIwrapt2.0.1indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with RDFLib/rdflib. Read them side by side →

98linkml/linkmlLinked Open Data Modeling LanguageExceptional99pypa/cibuildwheel🎡 Build Python wheels for all the platforms with minimal configuration. Exceptional98mongodb/mongo-python-driverPyMongo - the Official MongoDB Python driverExceptional98bokeh/bokehInteractive Data Visualization in the browser, from PythonExceptional98pypa/pipxInstall and Run Python Applications in Isolated EnvironmentsExceptional97networkx/networkxNetwork Analysis in PythonExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.