Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 10:44 UTC

Textualize / textual-dev

Development tools for Textual

PythonMIT★ 53 stars⑂ 22 forkssince Oct 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryTerminal interfacehow this is determined
#textual

Textualize/textual-dev holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (76/100) and lowest on Vitality (36/100). It was last updated 330 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TextualizeOrganization
2,374 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
PyPItextual-dev1.8.0397,96216336 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

36Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

18Critical
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 330 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push330
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

62Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 6 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 330 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~133.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv1.8.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release330
mean_days_between_releases133.5
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

40Weak
How it's scored
27.8/60Stars — 53 stars
11/25Forks — 22 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks22
stars53
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonbelow_threshold

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

93Exceptional
How it's scored
74.7/80Monthly downloads — 397,962 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestextual-dev
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads397,962
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?

76Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.484

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent
How it's scored
38.8/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
24/30PR acceptance — 28/35 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs28
open_issues1
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.923
closed_unmerged_prs7
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.

Ownership & stewardship

75Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.3/25Owner reach — 2,374 followers of Textualize
20.9/25Track record — 33 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,374
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginTextualize
public_repos33
account_age_days1,779

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 336 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestextual-dev
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish336

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

76Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://textual.textualize.io/getting_started/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstextual
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://textual.textualize.io/getting_started/
docs_sitehttps://textual.textualize.io/getting_started/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk
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
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 43 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3
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_packages24
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-dev@1.8.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 24 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

Agent context & guidance

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.3/40Legible commit history — 38 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.38
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/textual_dev/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
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
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/textual_dev/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/textual_dev/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes11,236
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

53GitHub stars
12contributors
22commits, last 12 months
330days since last push
6releases
2bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-05: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 53 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 53 ★ / 22 ⇿
53Stars
22Forks
6Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-05. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

0102030405060532232023-062025-012026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 1

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 10:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1CI-Tests1 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities43 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItextual>=0.86.2pyproject.toml
PyPItextual_serve>=1.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp>=3.8.1pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.1.2pyproject.toml
PyPImsgpack>=1.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions^4.4.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohttp3.12.15direct
PyPIclick8.1.8direct
PyPImsgpack1.1.1direct
PyPItextual6.1.0direct
PyPItextual-serve1.1.2direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp-jinja21.6indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIastroid3.3.11indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs25.3.0indirect
PyPIblack24.1.1indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdill0.4.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIfilelock3.19.1indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.7.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.14indirect
PyPIidna3.10indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlinkify-it-py2.0.3indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.2indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.4.2indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImsgpack-types0.2.0indirect
PyPImultidict6.6.4indirect
PyPImypy1.18.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.4.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit2.21.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.3.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpylint3.3.8indirect
PyPIpytest7.4.4indirect
PyPIpytest-aiohttp1.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio0.23.8indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIrich14.1.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItime-machine2.19.0indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.3indirect
PyPIuc-micro-py1.0.3indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.34.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.20.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:textual-dev@1.8.0 pulls in 24 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Textualize/textual-dev. Read them side by side →

95SWE-agent/mini-swe-agentThe 100 line AI agent that solves GitHub issues or helps you in your command line. Radically simple, no huge configs, no giant monorepo—but scores >74% on SWE-bench verified!Exceptional91kolega-ai/kolega-codeAgentic coding in the terminal: the model writes its own multi-agent workflows (Gigacode). Provider-agnostic, local-first, 15+ model providers, MCP support.Excellent90whyisdifficult/jiratuiA Textual User Interface for interacting with Atlassian Jira from your shellExcellent89tconbeer/harlequinThe SQL IDE for Your Terminal. Now with hsql, your agent's favorite sql client.Excellent86stabldev/torrraA Python tool that lets you search and download torrents without leaving your CLI.Excellent78Binomica-Labs/SpliceCraftTerminal-based plasmid map viewer, sequence editor, and cloning/mutagenesis workbench in pure PythonGood

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.