Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-10 21:43 UTC

codingjoe / django-s3file

A lightweight file upload input for Django and Amazon S3

Python · JavaScriptMIT★ 95 stars⑂ 20 forkssince Nov 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

codingjoe/django-s3file holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Johannes MaronPersonal account
311 followers148 public repossince May 2012

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 publish
PyPIdjango-s3file7.1.07,812870 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume — 88 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year88
human_commit_share0.12
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year49
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~114.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tag7.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases114.9
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32/60Stars — 95 stars
10.7/25Forks — 20 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks20
stars95
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.9/80Monthly downloads — 7,812 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdjango-s3file
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads7,812
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 factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 78% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.775
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance — 353/385 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs353
open_issues0
closed_issues40
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs32
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
17.9/25Owner reach — 311 followers of codingjoe
25/25Track record — 148 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers311
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logincodingjoe
public_repos148
account_age_days5,252
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 — 87 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdjango-s3file
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — package.json ("prettier"), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/codingjoe/django-s3file?tab=readme-ov-file
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdjango, aws, s3, django-storages, aws-s3, amazon, files, storage, heroku, heroku-deployment
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://github.com/codingjoe/django-s3file?tab=readme-ov-file
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages38
unassessed_packages4
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 38 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.aws.amazon.com/llms.txt
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 — package.json ("prettier"), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 46 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.46
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/25 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes12,260
source_files_sampled25
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

95GitHub stars
14contributors
88commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'django-s3file' from its registry
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:django-s3file@7.1.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 20 ⇿
0Stars
20Forks
35Releases

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.

0481216202012015-072021-022026-09
Major 4Minor 7Patch 24

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-10 21:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained22 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdjango>=5.2.13pyproject.toml
PyPIdjango-storages>=1.14.6pyproject.toml
PyPIboto3—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdjango—direct
PyPIdjango-storages—direct
npm@asamuzakjp/css-color7.0.0indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/dom-selector9.2.1indirect
npm@bramus/specificity2.4.2indirect
npm@csstools/color-helpers6.1.1indirect
npm@csstools/css-calc3.4.0indirect
npm@csstools/css-color-parser4.2.3indirect
npm@csstools/css-parser-algorithms4.0.0indirect
npm@csstools/css-syntax-patches-for-csstree1.1.14indirect
npm@csstools/css-tokenizer4.0.1indirect
npm@exodus/bytes1.15.1indirect
npmbidi-js1.1.0indirect
npmcss-tree3.2.1indirect
npmdata-urls7.0.0indirect
npmdecimal.js10.6.0indirect
npmentities8.0.0indirect
npmglobal-jsdom30.0.0indirect
npmhtml-encoding-sniffer7.0.0indirect
npmis-potential-custom-element-name1.0.1indirect
npmjsdom30.1.1indirect
npmlru-cache11.5.3indirect
npmmdn-data2.27.1indirect
npmparse58.0.1indirect
npmpunycode2.3.1indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
npmsaxes6.0.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.2indirect
npmtldts7.4.11indirect
npmtldts-core7.4.11indirect
npmtough-cookie6.0.2indirect
npmtr466.0.0indirect
npmundici8.10.2indirect
npmw3c-xmlserializer6.0.0indirect
npmwebidl-conversions8.0.1indirect
npmwhatwg-mimetype5.0.0indirect
npmwhatwg-url16.0.1indirect
npmwhatwg-url17.1.1indirect
npmxml-name-validator5.0.0indirect
npmxmlchars2.2.0indirect
PyPIflit-core—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 38 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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