Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 17:59 UTC

erdem / django-map-widgets

Highly customizable, intuitive, and user-friendly map widgets for GeoDjango applications.

JavaScript · Python · HTMLMIT★ 471 stars⑂ 126 forkssince Feb 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#django-map-widgets#django-admin#map-widgets#django#geolocation#geospatial#geodjango

erdem/django-map-widgets holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

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

Ownership

Erdem OzkolPersonal account
217 followers35 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

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIdemopoints to another repo — not scored0.1.02015576 days agotestegg
PyPIdjango-map-widgets0.6.0-240 days agodjangomap-widgetsgeodjangogeolocationmapboxgooglemapleafletinteractive-maps

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

59Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18Commit volume — 14 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year14
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~181.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv0.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases181.6
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?

60Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

68Good
How it's scored
43.3/60Stars — 471 stars
17.5/25Forks — 126 forks
7/15Watchers — 19 watchers
Inputs used
forks126
stars471
watchers19
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

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

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

25At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 33 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.887

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good
How it's scored
41.5/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
21.5/30PR acceptance — 56/78 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs56
open_issues1
closed_issues89
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.989
closed_unmerged_prs22
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

63Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.8/25Owner reach — 217 followers of erdem
23.3/25Track record — 35 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers217
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginerdem
public_repos35
account_age_days5,245
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 — 24 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdjango-map-widgets
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

66Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdjango-map-widgets, django-admin, map-widgets, django, geolocation, geospatial, geodjango
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?

32At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

32At Risk
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
2/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 1 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
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 — 40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

48Weak
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
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_testsno
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
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

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
53.5/55Manageable file sizes — 2/73 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes70,263
source_files_sampled73
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

471GitHub stars
33contributors
14commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch npm package 'django-map-widgets' from its registry
  • pypi package 'demo' points at a different repository (UNKNOWN); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 17:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 1 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
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
0Vulnerabilities40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmuglifycss0.0.27package.json
npmuglify-js~3.1.9package.json
PyPIdjango>=4.0,<7.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 64

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 61 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmuglify-js~3.1.9direct
npmuglifycss0.0.27direct
PyPIdjango5.2.12direct
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIasgiref3.11.1indirect
PyPIasttokens2.4.1indirect
PyPIbabel2.15.0indirect
PyPIblack24.4.2indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.6.2indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.3.2indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdecorator5.1.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.8indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecuting2.0.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.15.4indirect
PyPIidentify2.5.36indirect
PyPIidna3.7indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIipdb0.13.13indirect
PyPIipython8.25.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIjedi0.19.1indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.4indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.1.7indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging24.1indirect
PyPIparso0.8.4indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.2.2indirect
PyPIpre-commit3.7.1indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.47indirect
PyPIpsycopg2-binary2.9.12indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.18.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools70.1.0indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx7.3.7indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.8indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.6indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.5indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.7indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.10indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.0indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItraitlets5.14.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItzdata2024.1indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.2indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.26.3indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.2.13indirect
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 erdem/django-map-widgets. Read them side by side →

91antvis/L7🌎 Large-scale WebGL-powered Geospatial Data Visualization analysis engine.Excellent84JamesLMilner/terra-drawA library for drawing on maps that supports Mapbox, MapLibre, Google Maps, OpenLayers and Leaflet out the box Excellent98CesiumGS/cesiumAn open-source JavaScript library for world-class 3D globes and maps :earth_americas:Exceptional96django-commons/django-polymorphicImproved Django model inheritance with automatic downcastingExceptional94keplergl/kepler.glKepler.gl is a powerful open source geospatial analysis tool for large-scale data sets.Exceptional94rnmapbox/mapsA Mapbox react native module for creating custom mapsExceptional

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 — PyPI.