Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 06:59 UTC

blueswen / mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag

A MkDocs plugin supports adding Swagger UI to the page.

PythonMIT★ 113 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗

KindPluginCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#mkdocs #mkdocs-plugin #openapi #swagger-ui #openapi3

blueswen/mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated 66 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BlueswenPersonal account

188 followers58 public repossince Mar 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag	0.8.1	-	30	66 days ago	mkdocs openapi plugin swagger-ui

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

40Weak

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 66 days ago
4.2/36	Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18	Commit volume — 19 commits in the last year
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

commits_last_year	19
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	66
active_weeks_last_year	6

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 66 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~107.2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	30
latest_release_tag	v0.8.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	66
mean_days_between_releases	107.2

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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak

How it's scored

33.2/60	Stars — 113 stars
9.8/25	Forks — 16 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	16
stars	113
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

25At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	10
top_contributor_share	0.904

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good

How it's scored

30/42	Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
23.6/30	PR acceptance — 11/14 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	11
open_issues	10
closed_issues	25
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.714
closed_unmerged_prs	3
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

64Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.4/25	Owner reach — 188 followers of blueswen
24.9/25	Track record — 58 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	188
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	blueswen
public_repos	58
account_age_days	5,289

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 66 days ago
20/20	Version history — 30 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	66

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .flake8
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://blueswen.github.io/mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	mkdocs, mkdocs-plugin, openapi, swagger-ui, openapi3
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://blueswen.github.io/mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag/
docs_site	https://blueswen.github.io/mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 4 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
4.5/7.5	Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 29 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	3.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	3
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag@0.8.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

12Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.7/40	Legible commit history — 22 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.22
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .flake8
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

41Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
41.2/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/8 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	1,537,593
source_files_sampled	8
oversized_source_files	2

Key facts

113GitHub stars

10contributors

19commits, last 12 months

66days since last push

30releases

1bus factor

10open issues

npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 16 ⇿

0Stars

16Forks

23Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 5Patch 18

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10

3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 06:59 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8	CI-Tests	4 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
6	Maintained	7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	29 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	swagger-ui-dist	`^5.32.8`	package.json
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`>=4.13.3`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 112

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 110 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	swagger-ui-dist	`5.32.8`	direct
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.13.3`	direct
npm	@scarf/scarf	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	backrefs	`5.7.post1`	indirect
PyPI	backrefs	`5.8`	indirect
PyPI	bandit	`1.7.10`	indirect
PyPI	bandit	`1.8.3`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.1.31`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`1.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`—`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	codecov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	codecov	`2.1.13`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.6.12`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`44.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.20.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.10`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-resources	`6.4.5`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.7`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-document-dates	`3.7.3`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-document-dates	`3.8.7`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-get-deps	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-glightbox	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`—`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-materialx	`10.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-materialx	`10.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag	`0.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.2.21`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`24.2`	indirect
PyPI	paginate	`0.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	pbr	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	playwright	`1.48.0`	indirect
PyPI	playwright	`1.50.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	properdocs	`1.6.7`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.22`	indirect
PyPI	pyee	`12.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyee	`12.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`10.14.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.396`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.3.5`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-base-url	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`5.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-playwright	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-playwright	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-slugify	`8.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2025.1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`0.1`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`43.0`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.3`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`13.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.9.10`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`75.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`75.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.6`	indirect
PyPI	stevedore	`5.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	stevedore	`5.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	text-unidecode	`1.3`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.12.2`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`4.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.20.2`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.21.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag@0.8.1 pulls in 3 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records