Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 19:45 UTC

elapouya / python-docx-template

Use a docx as a jinja2 template

PythonLGPL-2.1★ 2,696 stars⑂ 452 forkssince Mar 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

elapouya/python-docx-template holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated 51 days ago. 7 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Eric LapouyadePersonal account
77 followers41 public repossince Jul 2011

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 publishTags
PyPIdocxtpl0.20.23,750,362101287 days agojinja2

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

46Weak
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 51 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
13.3/18Commit volume — 29 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year29
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push51
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

58Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 84 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 287 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~115.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count84
latest_release_tagv0.20.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release287
mean_days_between_releases115.7
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?

77Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

87Excellent
How it's scored
55.6/60Stars — 2,696 stars
22.1/25Forks — 452 forks
9.5/15Watchers — 52 watchers
Inputs used
forks452
stars2,696
watchers52
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (LGPL-2.1)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 3,750,362 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdocxtpl
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,750,362
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?

77Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

87Excellent
How it's scored
51.3/54Bus factor — 7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 16% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 53 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor7
contributors_sampled53
top_contributor_share0.161

Issue & PR responsiveness

70Good
How it's scored
29/42Issue resolution — 69% of issues closed
21.7/30PR acceptance — 99/137 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_prs99
open_issues157
closed_issues349
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.69
closed_unmerged_prs38
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.

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.6/25Owner reach — 77 followers of elapouya
23.8/25Track record — 41 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers77
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginelapouya
public_repos41
account_age_days5,536
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 287 days ago
20/20Version history — 101 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdocxtpl
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish287

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

58Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

47Weak
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
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
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
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 — 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 21 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages5
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:docxtpl@0.20.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 5 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

19Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.4/40Legible commit history — 36 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.364
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesPipfile.lock, poetry.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/47 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes34,451
source_files_sampled47
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,696GitHub stars
53contributors
29commits, last 12 months
51days since last push
84releases
7bus factor
157open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-19: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 2696 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 2,675 ★ / 452 ⇿
2,675Stars
452Forks
83Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-19. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0002,675449522015-072021-022026-08
Major 0Minor 15Patch 68

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 19:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities21 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpython-docx—pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2—pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 107

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 98 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIjinja2—direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPIlxml—direct
PyPIlxml5.4.0direct
PyPIlxml6.1.1direct
PyPIpython-docx—direct
PyPIpython-docx1.1.0direct
PyPIpython-docx1.1.2direct
PyPIpython-docx1.2.0direct
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.14.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIblack24.10.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.8.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.3indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdocutils0.19indirect
PyPIdocutils0.20.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIdocxcompose—indirect
PyPIdocxcompose1.4.0indirect
PyPIdocxcompose1.4.1indirect
PyPIdocxcompose2.2.0indirect
PyPIflake87.2.0indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIidna3.10indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIimagesize1.5.0indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata6.7.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPIlxml-stubs0.5.1indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImypy1.18.2indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging24.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.7indirect
PyPIpockets0.9.1indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.13.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.3.2indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.17.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIpytz2026.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.31.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.4indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools68.0.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx5.3.0indirect
PyPIsphinx7.1.2indirect
PyPIsphinx7.4.7indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-book-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-napoleon0.7indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.7.1indirect
PyPIurllib32.0.7indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.15.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:docxtpl@0.20.2 pulls in 5 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with elapouya/python-docx-template. Read them side by side →

98aristanetworks/avdArista AVD: Architect Validate DeployExceptional88aio-libs/aiohttp-jinja2jinja2 template renderer for aiohttp.webExcellent86mitsuhiko/minijinjaMiniJinja is a powerful but minimal dependency template engine for Rust compatible with Jinja/Jinja2Excellent78volfpeter/fasthxDeclarative Python server-side rendering utility for FastAPI with built-in HTMX support.Good67paulomtts/pyjinhxUI utility layer for template-based python web apps. Uses Pydantic and Jinja2 - works great with HTMX!Good59dbt-labs/dbt-extractorModerate

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.