Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 20:06 UTC

TimKleindick / general_manager

Opinionated framework for Django - batteries included

PythonMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

TimKleindick/general_manager holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Tim KleindickPersonal account
0 followers2 public repossince Aug 2021@constellium

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 publishTags
PyPIGeneralManager0.80.0-2110 days agodjangoormgraphqlpermissionsvalidationcachingframework

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
29.1/36Commit cadence — 42/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,467 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_year1,467
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year42

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.80.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.2
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?

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars — 5 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars5
watchers1
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 (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_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.998
How it's scored
41.1/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 329/356 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs329
open_issues3
closed_issues136
prs_merged_7d13
prs_decided_7d13
prs_merged_30d41
prs_decided_30d43
issue_closed_ratio0.978
closed_unmerged_prs27
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
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of TimKleindick
13.6/25Track record — 2 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginTimKleindick
public_repos2
account_age_days1,842
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 211 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesGeneralManager
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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://timkleindick.github.io/general_manager/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscrud, django, framework, graphql, python
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://timkleindick.github.io/general_manager/
docs_sitehttps://timkleindick.github.io/general_manager/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
6.7/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: gitpython 3.1.58 (critical 9.8), django 5.2.16 (moderate 5.3)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories11
affected_packages3
assessed_packages58
unassessed_packages43
affected_by_severitycritical 1, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 58 resolved dependencies against OSV. 43 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 87 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.87
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,534
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/general_manager/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/general_manager/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/general_manager/py.typed)
52.4/55Manageable file sizes — 32/685 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes241,615
source_files_sampled685
oversized_source_files32
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

5GitHub stars
2contributors
1,467commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'GeneralManager' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:GeneralManager@0.80.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10
7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 20:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 9/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 30
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIasgiref>=3.8.1pyproject.toml
PyPIcelery>=5.3.6,<6.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIchannels>=4.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIDjango>=5.2.16pyproject.toml
PyPIdjango-simple-history>=3.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPIexrex>=0.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfactory_boy>=3.3.3pyproject.toml
PyPIFaker>=37.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIflexcache>=0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIflexparser>=0.4pyproject.toml
PyPIgitdb>=4.0.12pyproject.toml
PyPIGitPython>=3.1.58pyproject.toml
PyPIgraphene>=3.4.3pyproject.toml
PyPIgraphene-django>=3.2.3pyproject.toml
PyPIgraphql-core>=3.2.6pyproject.toml
PyPIgraphql-relay>=3.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=2.2.5pyproject.toml
PyPIopenpyxl>=3.1.5,<3.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfilelock>=3.24.3,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIPint>=0.24.4pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs>=4.3.7pyproject.toml
PyPIpromise>=2.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>=2.9.0.post0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML>=6.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIsix>=1.17.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsmmap>=5.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIsqlparse>=0.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPItext-unidecode>=1.3pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.13.2pyproject.toml
PyPItzdata>=2025.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 101

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 59 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIasgiref—direct
PyPIasgiref3.11.1direct
PyPIcelery—direct
PyPIchannels—direct
PyPIchannels4.3.2direct
PyPIdjango—direct
PyPIdjango5.2.16direct
PyPIdjango-simple-history—direct
PyPIdjango-simple-history3.11.0direct
PyPIexrex—direct
PyPIexrex0.12.0direct
PyPIfactory-boy—direct
PyPIfactory-boy3.3.3direct
PyPIfaker—direct
PyPIfaker40.15.0direct
PyPIfilelock—direct
PyPIfilelock3.24.3direct
PyPIflexcache—direct
PyPIflexcache0.3direct
PyPIflexparser—direct
PyPIflexparser0.4direct
PyPIgitdb—direct
PyPIgitdb4.0.12direct
PyPIgitpython—direct
PyPIgitpython3.1.58direct
PyPIgraphene—direct
PyPIgraphene3.4.3direct
PyPIgraphene-django—direct
PyPIgraphene-django3.2.3direct
PyPIgraphql-core—direct
PyPIgraphql-core3.2.8direct
PyPIgraphql-relay—direct
PyPIgraphql-relay3.2.0direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPInumpy2.4.4direct
PyPIopenpyxl—direct
PyPIopenpyxl3.1.5direct
PyPIpint—direct
PyPIpint0.25.3direct
PyPIplatformdirs—direct
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6direct
PyPIpromise—direct
PyPIpromise2.3direct
PyPIpython-dateutil—direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIpyyaml—direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIsix—direct
PyPIsix1.17.0direct
PyPIsmmap—direct
PyPIsmmap5.0.3direct
PyPIsqlparse—direct
PyPIsqlparse0.6.0direct
PyPItext-unidecode—direct
PyPItext-unidecode1.3direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPItzdata—direct
PyPItzdata2026.2direct
PyPIanthropic—indirect
PyPIblack26.3.1indirect
PyPIboto3—indirect
PyPIcelery-types0.23.0indirect
PyPIdaphne—indirect
PyPIdjango-prometheus2.4.1indirect
PyPIdjango-redis5.4.0indirect
PyPIdjango-storages—indirect
PyPIdjango-types0.24.0indirect
PyPIet-xmlfile2.0.0indirect
PyPIgeneralmanager—indirect
PyPIgoogle-genai—indirect
PyPIipython9.0.2indirect
PyPImeilisearch—indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.3indirect
PyPImkdocs-awesome-pages-plugin2.10.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-git-revision-date-localized-plugin1.4.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-glightbox0.5.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.6.21indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-minify-plugin0.8.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-section-index0.3.10indirect
PyPImkdocstrings0.30.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python1.18.2indirect
PyPImypy1.20.2indirect
PyPIollama—indirect
PyPIopenai—indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.3.0indirect
PyPIprometheus-client—indirect
PyPIprometheus-client0.21.1indirect
PyPIprometheus-client0.24.1indirect
PyPIpsycopg—indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov4.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-django4.11.1indirect
PyPIpython-json-logger2.0.7indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20250915indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 58 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct. 43 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
gitpython3.1.58directcritical93.1.59
django5.2.16directmoderate16.0.8
mkdocs-material9.6.21indirectmoderate19.7.7

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.