Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 03:05 UTC

frappe / bench

CLI to manage Multi-tenant deployments for Frappe apps

PythonGPL-3.0★ 1,718 stars⑂ 1,352 forkssince Jul 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

frappe/bench holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (100/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FrappeOrganization
6,134 followers222 public repossince Jun 2011

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIfrappe-bench5.31.0-8257 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence18/52 weeks with commits
15.6/18Commit volume54 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year54
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases97 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 57 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~38.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count97
latest_release_tagv5.31.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release57
mean_days_between_releases38.8

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
52.5/60Stars1,718 stars
25/25Forks1,352 forks
11.1/15Watchers102 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,352
stars1,718
watchers102
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

88Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.295
How it's scored
34.2/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
22.9/30PR acceptance679/891 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs679
open_issues141
closed_issues621
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.815
closed_unmerged_prs212
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach6,134 followers of frappe
25/25Track record222 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers6,134
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginfrappe
public_repos222
account_age_days5,544
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 57 days ago
20/20Version history82 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfrappe-bench
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish57

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

100Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.flake8
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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 sitehttps://frappeframework.com/docs/user/en/bench
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfrappe-bench, cli, frappe-framework, setup-bench, python
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://frappeframework.com/docs/user/en/bench
docs_sitehttps://frappeframework.com/docs/user/en/bench
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
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 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): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.9/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories2 affected: click 8.2.2 (high 7.2), setuptools 81.0.0 (moderate 6.1)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
33.9/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 104 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories3
affected_packages2
assessed_packages18
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages2
Matched the pypi:frappe-bench@5.31.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 18 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.flake8
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice7 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.07
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/48 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes31,466
source_files_sampled48
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,718GitHub stars
99contributors
54commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
97releases
4bus factor
141open 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 ★ / 1,352 ⇿
0Stars
1,352Forks
86Releases

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.

2004006008001,0001,2001,4001,35292018-042022-062026-08
Major 0Minor 29Patch 54

Each point covers 8 days.

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 · 2026-08-13 03:04 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 6/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIClick~=8.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIGitPython~=3.1.30pyproject.toml
PyPIhonchopyproject.toml
PyPIJinja2~=3.1.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-crontab~=2.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests~=2.33.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsemantic-version~=2.10.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools>=71.0.0,<82.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItomlipyproject.toml
PyPIuv~=0.11.6pyproject.toml
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIclickdirect
PyPIgitpythondirect
PyPIjinja2direct
PyPIpython-crontabdirect
PyPIrequestsdirect
PyPIsemantic-versiondirect
PyPIsetuptoolsdirect
PyPIuvdirect
PyPIhatchlingindirect
Dependency advisories 2

Installing pypi:frappe-bench@5.31.0 pulls in 18 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.2.2directhigh18.3.3
setuptools81.0.0directmoderate283.0.0

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.