Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:40 UTC

evansd / whitenoise

Radically simplified static file serving for Python web apps

PythonMIT★ 2,753 stars⑂ 153 forkssince Aug 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#django

evansd/whitenoise holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (98/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (51/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Dave EvansPersonal account
161 followers42 public repossince Aug 2008

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
PyPIwhitenoise6.12.0-60141 days agodjango

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year22

Release discipline

70Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 40 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36Release recency — latest release 141 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~109.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tag6.12.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release141
mean_days_between_releases109.6
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?

74Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

82Excellent
How it's scored
55.8/60Stars — 2,753 stars
18.2/25Forks — 153 forks
7.7/15Watchers — 25 watchers
Inputs used
forks153
stars2,753
watchers25
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

65Good
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

73Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 66 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled66
top_contributor_share0.468

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good
How it's scored
37.6/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
28.2/30PR acceptance — 413/439 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs413
open_issues26
closed_issues224
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.896
closed_unmerged_prs26
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

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.9/25Owner reach — 161 followers of evansd
23.9/25Track record — 42 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers161
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginevansd
public_repos42
account_age_days6,556
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 141 days ago
20/20Version history — 60 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswhitenoise
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish141

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

98Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

96Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://whitenoise.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdjango
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://whitenoise.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://whitenoise.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate
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 — 25 out of 28 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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 15 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
5.2/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

51Moderate · 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)

87Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.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

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/29 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes13,381
source_files_sampled29
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,753GitHub stars
66contributors
45commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
40releases
2bus factor
26open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 13:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests25 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIasgiref3.11.1indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIbrotli1.2.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.0indirect
PyPIdjango5.2.14indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly4.1.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-build-compatibility0.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.5indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwhitenoise6.12.0indirect
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 evansd/whitenoise. Read them side by side →

99wagtail/wagtailA Django content management system focused on flexibility and user experienceExceptional98netbox-community/netboxThe premier source of truth powering network automation. Open source under Apache 2. Try NetBox Cloud free: https://netboxlabs.com/products/free-netbox-cloud/Exceptional98django/djangoThe Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.Exceptional98strawberry-graphql/strawberryA GraphQL library for Python that leverages type annotations 🍓Exceptional97typeddjango/django-stubsPEP-484 stubs for DjangoExceptional97elastic/apm-agent-pythonExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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