Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 01:05 UTC

Textualize / textual

The lean application framework for Python. Build sophisticated user interfaces with a simple Python API. Run your apps in the terminal and a web browser.

PythonMIT★ 36,851 stars⑂ 1,289 forkssince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Textualize/textual holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (96/100) and lowest on Security (56/100). It was last updated 24 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

TextualizeOrganization
2,362 followers33 public repossince Oct 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPItextual8.2.8450,724,36325435 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 24 days ago
29.1/36Commit cadence42/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume762 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year762
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push24
active_weeks_last_year42

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 35 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~12.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv8.2.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release35
mean_days_between_releases12.4
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?

96Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars36,851 stars
25/25Forks1,289 forks
12.6/15Watchers183 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,289
stars36,851
watchers183
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
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_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads450,724,363 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestextual
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads450,724,363
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 38 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.545
How it's scored
38.1/42Issue resolution91% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance2,311/2,709 decided PRs merged
1.9/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs2,311
open_issues229
closed_issues2,202
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.906
closed_unmerged_prs398
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
24.3/25Owner reach2,362 followers of Textualize
20.7/25Track record33 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,362
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginTextualize
public_repos33
account_age_days1,740
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 35 days ago
20/20Version history254 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestextual
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish35

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

93Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
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 sitehttps://textual.textualize.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsterminal, python, tui, rich, cli, framework
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://textual.textualize.io/
docs_sitehttps://textual.textualize.io/
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
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 38 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
1/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
4.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities66 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages9
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:textual@8.2.8 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 9 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
8.5/40Legible commit history16 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.16
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingmypy.ini, src/textual/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, src/textual/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (mypy.ini, src/textual/py.typed)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes8/988 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes184,776
source_files_sampled988
oversized_source_files8
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesdemos, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos, 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

36,851GitHub stars
99contributors
762commits, last 12 months
24days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
229open 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 ★ / 1,289 ⇿
0Stars
1,289Forks
100Releases

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.

2004006008001,0001,2001,4001,289302022-082024-082026-08
Major 8Minor 52Patch 40

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 01:04 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
7CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 38 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities66 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImarkdown-it-py>=2.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPImdit-py-plugins*pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=14.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions^4.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs>=3.6.0,<5pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter>=0.25.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-python>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-markdown>=0.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-json>=0.24.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-toml>=0.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-yaml>=0.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-html>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-css>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-javascript>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-rust>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-go>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-regex>=0.24.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-xml>=0.7.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-sql>=0.3.11pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-java>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-bash>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpygments^2.19.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 111

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 89 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0direct
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.4.2direct
PyPIplatformdirs4.4.0direct
PyPIpygments2.19.2direct
PyPIrich14.2.0direct
PyPItree-sitter0.25.2direct
PyPItree-sitter-bash0.25.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-css0.25.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-go0.25.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-html0.23.2direct
PyPItree-sitter-java0.23.5direct
PyPItree-sitter-javascript0.25.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-json0.24.8direct
PyPItree-sitter-markdown0.5.1direct
PyPItree-sitter-python0.25.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-regex0.25.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-rust0.24.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-sql0.3.11direct
PyPItree-sitter-toml0.7.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-xml0.7.0direct
PyPItree-sitter-yaml0.7.2direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.13.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp-jinja21.6indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.11.0indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs5.9indirect
PyPIblack24.4.2indirect
PyPIcachecontrol0.14.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.10.5indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.10.7indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.19.1indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.45indirect
PyPIgriffe0.32.3indirect
PyPIh110.14.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore0.16.3indirect
PyPIhttpx0.23.3indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.15indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlinkify-it-py2.0.3indirect
PyPImarkdown3.9indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.3indirect
PyPImkdocs-exclude1.0.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-git-revision-date-localized-plugin1.4.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.6.22indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-rss-plugin1.17.4indirect
PyPImkdocstrings0.20.0indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python1.3.0indirect
PyPImsgpack1.1.2indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.0indirect
PyPImypy1.18.2indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit2.21.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.4.1indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.16.1indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-textual-snapshot1.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrfc39861.5.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.2indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsyrupy4.8.0indirect
PyPItextual-dev1.8.0indirect
PyPItextual-serve1.1.2indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools67.8.0.0indirect
PyPItzdata2024.2indirect
PyPIuc-micro-py1.0.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.5.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.35.3indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.22.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:textual@8.2.8 pulls in 9 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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