Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 21:55 UTC

farridav / django-jazzmin

Jazzy theme for Django

HTML · PythonMIT★ 1,884 stars⑂ 324 forkssince May 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

farridav/django-jazzmin holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated 84 days ago. 2 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

David FarringtonPersonal account
101 followers33 public repossince Dec 2012Shipit LTD

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
PyPIdjango-jazzmin3.0.5458,5303784 days agoadmindashboarddjangojazzmintheme

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

54Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 84 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume — 17 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year17
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push84
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 84 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~172.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv3.0.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release84
mean_days_between_releases172.4
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
How it's scored
53.1/60Stars — 1,884 stars
20.9/25Forks — 324 forks
8.7/15Watchers — 37 watchers
Inputs used
forks324
stars1,884
watchers37
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
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, coveralls.io, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
75.5/80Monthly downloads — 458,530 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdjango-jazzmin
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads458,530
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?

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 67 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled67
top_contributor_share0.303
How it's scored
22.6/42Issue resolution — 54% of issues closed
23.8/30PR acceptance — 251/317 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs251
open_issues149
closed_issues173
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.537
closed_unmerged_prs66
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
14.4/25Owner reach — 101 followers of farridav
23.2/25Track record — 33 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers101
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginfarridav
public_repos33
account_age_days5,034
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 84 days ago
20/20Version history — 37 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdjango-jazzmin
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish84

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://django-jazzmin.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdjango, dashboard, theme, admin, jazzmin, adminlte
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://django-jazzmin.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://django-jazzmin.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 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
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 — 36 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.8
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_packages3
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:django-jazzmin@3.0.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28/40Legible commit history — 51 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.526
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — 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 — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — HTML without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/62 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes18,206
source_files_sampled62
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,884GitHub stars
67contributors
17commits, last 12 months
84days since last push
36releases
2bus factor
149open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 324 ⇿
0Stars
324Forks
33Releases

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.

0125250375321102020-062023-072026-08
Major 1Minor 3Patch 29

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 21:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1CI-Tests1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 8/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities36 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdjango>=4.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 80

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdjango—direct
PyPIdjango5.2.11direct
PyPIdjango6.0.2direct
PyPIasgiref3.11.1indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.1indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.3indirect
PyPIcoveralls4.0.2indirect
PyPIdecorator5.2.1indirect
PyPIdj-database-url—indirect
PyPIdjango-debug-toolbar—indirect
PyPIdjango-debug-toolbar6.2.0indirect
PyPIdjango-extensions—indirect
PyPIdjango-extensions4.1indirect
PyPIdjango-jazzmin—indirect
PyPIdocopt0.6.2indirect
PyPIdocutils—indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.1indirect
PyPIfactory-boy—indirect
PyPIfactory-boy3.3.3indirect
PyPIfaker40.4.0indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgunicorn—indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata4.13.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIipdb0.13.13indirect
PyPIipython8.38.0indirect
PyPIipython9.10.0indirect
PyPIipython-pygments-lexers1.1.1indirect
PyPIjedi0.19.2indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.7.8indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.1indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.2.1indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.0indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIparso0.8.5indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpolib1.2.0indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.52indirect
PyPIpsycopg2-binary—indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.3indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-django4.11.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIruff0.15.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.5indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItraitlets5.14.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItzdata2025.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.6.0indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.5indirect
PyPIwhitenoise—indirect
PyPIwhitenoise6.11.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:django-jazzmin@3.0.5 pulls in 3 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.

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.