# documatt/sphinx-reredirects — health index 48/100 (At risk)

> Inspection of the public repository documatt/sphinx-reredirects by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the At risk band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/documatt/sphinx-reredirects
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/documatt/sphinx-reredirects
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/documatt/sphinx-reredirects/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/d/documatt/sphinx-reredirects.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-18
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.12.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 36/100 | At risk |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 52/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 60/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 62/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 26/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 39/100 | At risk |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | The extension for Sphinx documentation projects that handles redirects for moved pages. Based on the its configuration, the extension generates HTML pages with meta refresh redirects to the new page location. |
| Homepage | https://documatt.com/sphinx-reredirects/ |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 16 |
| Forks | 5 |
| Created | 2022-07-27 |
| Last push | 2026-02-27 |
| Latest release | v1.1.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 7 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | sphinx-reredirects | 1.1.0 | 887,077 |

## Vitality — 36/100 (At risk)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 21/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 9.9 / 36 | last push 140 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 2.8 / 36 | 4/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 8.1 / 18 | 7 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 58/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 10 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | partial | 16.2 / 36 | latest release 208 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~86.6 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 52/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 24/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 19.1 / 60 | 16 stars |
| Forks | partial | 5 / 25 | 5 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 2 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 99/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 79.3 / 80 | 887,077 downloads/month across pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 60/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 32/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 3 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 87% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 10 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 6 / 10 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 33.8 / 46.8 | 72% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 38.2 / 38.2 | 9/9 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 1/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 6.1 / 25 | 6 followers of documatt |
| Track record | partial | 18.5 / 25 | 8 public repos, account ~5 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 91/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | partial | 26 / 35 | latest publish 208 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 10 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 62/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 2 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 2 / 20 | 1 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1 |

### Documentation — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://documatt.com/sphinx-reredirects/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 26/100 (Critical)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 26/100 (Critical)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | partial | 0.2 / 2.5 | 1 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 1/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | partial | 1.5 / 2.5 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 40 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 39/100 (At risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 61/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | docs/noxfile.py, noxfile.py |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Python without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/12 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch pypi package 'sphinx-reredirects-docs' from its registry

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt