Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 01:54 UTC

bookwyrm-social / bookwyrm

Social reading and reviewing, decentralized with ActivityPub

Python · HTMLCustom license★ 2,748 stars⑂ 324 forkssince Jan 2020View on GitHub ↗
#activitypub#decentralization#federation#books#reading#social-media#openlibrary#bookwyrm

bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

92
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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BookWyrmOrganization
223 followers4 public repossince Apr 2021

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,273 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,273
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 26 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~48.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv0.9.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release26
mean_days_between_releases48.2
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?

85Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

85Excellent
How it's scored
55.8/60Stars — 2,748 stars
20.9/25Forks — 324 forks
8.1/15Watchers — 30 watchers
Inputs used
forks324
stars2,748
watchers30
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.713

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
31.4/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
27.6/30PR acceptance — 2,202/2,392 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs2,202
open_issues386
closed_issues1,147
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.748
closed_unmerged_prs190
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

78Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
16.9/25Owner reach — 223 followers of bookwyrm-social
15.6/25Track record — 4 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers223
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginbookwyrm-social
public_repos4
account_age_days1,924
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.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_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://joinbookwyrm.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsactivitypub, decentralization, federation, books, reading, social-media, openlibrary, bookwyrm
has_wikino
homepagehttp://joinbookwyrm.com/
docs_sitehttp://joinbookwyrm.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

73Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
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
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 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
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate7.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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

Agent context & guidance

30At Risk
How it's scored
18/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md (stub)
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes46
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.js
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/778 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes56,214
source_files_sampled778
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,748GitHub stars
100contributors
1,273commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
386open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 01:53 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-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
7Code-ReviewFound 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 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
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 71

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 71 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmbulma^0.9.3indirect
npmeslint^8.9.0indirect
npmmerge2.1.1indirect
npmprettier2.5.1indirect
npmstylelint^17.1.1indirect
npmstylelint-config-recommended^18.0.0indirect
npmstylelint-config-standard^40.0.0indirect
npmstylelint-config-standard-scss^17.0.0indirect
npmstylelint-order^7.0.1indirect
npmwatch^1.0.2indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.14.1indirect
PyPIarabic-reshaper3.0.1indirect
PyPIbleach6.4.0indirect
PyPIboto31.34.74indirect
PyPIbw-file-resubmit0.6.0rc2indirect
PyPIcelery5.6.2indirect
PyPIcelery-types0.22.0indirect
PyPIcolorthief0.2.1indirect
PyPIdjango5.2.15indirect
PyPIdjango-celery-beat2.8.1indirect
PyPIdjango-compressor4.6indirect
PyPIdjango-csp3.8indirect
PyPIdjango-imagekit6.0.0indirect
PyPIdjango-model-utils4.4.0indirect
PyPIdjango-oauth-toolkit3.2.0indirect
PyPIdjango-pgtrigger4.17.0indirect
PyPIdjango-sass-processor1.4.2indirect
PyPIdjango-storages1.14.6indirect
PyPIdjango-stubs4.2.7indirect
PyPIenvirons14.5.0indirect
PyPIflower2.0.1indirect
PyPIgrpcio—indirect
PyPIgunicorn25.0.3indirect
PyPIhiredis2.3.2indirect
PyPIlibsass0.23.0indirect
PyPImistune3.3.0indirect
PyPImypy1.7.1indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.24.0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-grpc1.24.0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-instrumentation-celery0.45b0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-instrumentation-django0.45b0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-instrumentation-psycopg0.45b0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-sdk1.24.0indirect
PyPIpilkit—indirect
PyPIpillow12.2.0indirect
PyPIpsycopg3.2.9indirect
PyPIpycryptodome3.20.0indirect
PyPIpyotp2.9.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-django4.8.0indirect
PyPIpytest-env1.1.3indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.5.0indirect
PyPIpython-bidi0.6.10indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytidylib0.3.2indirect
PyPIqrcode7.4.2indirect
PyPIredis5.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIresponses0.25.0indirect
PyPIruff0.14.7indirect
PyPIs3-tar0.1.13indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.4indirect
PyPItornado—indirect
PyPItypes-bleach6.1.0.20240331indirect
PyPItypes-dataclasses0.6.6indirect
PyPItypes-pillow10.2.0.20240331indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20240316indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.31.0.20240311indirect
PyPIua-parser1.0.1indirect
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 bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm. Read them side by side →

83writefreely/writefreelyA clean, Markdown-based publishing platform made for writers. Write together and build a community.Excellent67bayang/jeluSelf hosted read and to-read list book trackerGood56shiquda/weread-cli微信读书 CLI / WeRead CLI: 基于官方支持 API，面向人类与 AI Agent 的书架、笔记、划线、书评、阅读统计和推荐工具。Official API-based WeRead command-line tool with Agent Skill support.Moderate45rmdes/indiekit-endpoint-activitypubActivityPub federation endpoint for IndiekitWeak99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional56datacharter/datacharterYour data, explored locally — and your AI agents kept on a leash. A federated data explorer with governed agentic access.Moderate

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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