Public record
Software health reportschema 0.32.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-20 06:38 UTC

WeblateOrg / weblate_schemas

Schemas used in Weblate

PythonMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Mar 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

WeblateOrg/weblate_schemas holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WeblateOrganization
322 followers32 public repossince Apr 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIweblate_schemas2026.7108,273260 days agoi18nl10ngettextweblatetranslate

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume447 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year447
human_commit_share0.16
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases11 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~47.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tag2026.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases47.4

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
6.5/25Forks7 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars2
watchers1
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_servicesbestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
67.1/80Monthly downloads108,273 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesweblate_schemas
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads108,273
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 94% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.937
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution67% of issues closed
29.5/30PR acceptance897/911 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs897
open_issues1
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d10
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
18/25Owner reach322 followers of WeblateOrg
23.1/25Track record32 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers322
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginWeblateOrg
public_repos32
account_age_days3,788
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history26 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesweblate_schemas
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

81Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
4.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 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): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages4
unassessed_packages2
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 4 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingweblate_schemas/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance84 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsweblate_schemas/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.84
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (weblate_schemas/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes22,842
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
5contributors
447commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:weblate_schemas@2026.7; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks
9Releases

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.

1234567712021-062023-122026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 5 days.

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 · 2026-08-20 06:38 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
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIjsonschema>=4.24.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIjsonschemadirect
PyPIprek0.4.13indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-github-actions-annotate-failures0.4.2indirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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 v0.32.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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