Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 04:45 UTC

helloflask / bootstrap-flask

Bootstrap 4 & 5 helper for your Flask projects.

SCSS · Python · HTMLCustom license★ 1,195 stars⑂ 193 forkssince Feb 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#jinja2#bootstrap-flask#flask-bootstrap#bootstrap#bootstrap4#flask#wtforms#flask-wtf#flask-sqlalchemy#bootstrap5#python

helloflask/bootstrap-flask holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on Vitality (30/100). It was last updated 173 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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

HelloFlaskOrganization
159 followers23 public repossince Nov 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIBootstrap-Flask2.5.0-37467 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

30At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

10Critical
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 173 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push173
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

60Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 467 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~109.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tag2.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release467
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

77Good
How it's scored
49.9/60Stars — 1,195 stars
19/25Forks — 193 forks
7.9/15Watchers — 27 watchers
Inputs used
forks193
stars1,195
watchers27
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescoveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

37Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 79% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 32 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled32
top_contributor_share0.792

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
33.5/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
23.8/30PR acceptance — 156/197 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs156
open_issues36
closed_issues142
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.798
closed_unmerged_prs41
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

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
15.8/25Owner reach — 159 followers of helloflask
22.1/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers159
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginhelloflask
public_repos23
account_age_days3,572
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

79Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 467 days ago
20/20Version history — 37 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesBootstrap-Flask
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish467

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8, tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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://bootstrap-flask.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 11 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjinja2, bootstrap-flask, flask-bootstrap, bootstrap, bootstrap4, flask, wtforms, flask-wtf, flask-sqlalchemy, bootstrap5, python
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://bootstrap-flask.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://bootstrap-flask.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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_packages8
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:Bootstrap-Flask@2.5.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 8 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

Agent context & guidance

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.2/40Legible commit history — 44 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.454
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

59Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8, tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03

Code legibility for models

51Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — SCSS without a type-check config
50.9/55Manageable file sizes — 3/40 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageSCSS
largest_source_bytes89,476
source_files_sampled40
oversized_source_files3

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

1,195GitHub stars
32contributors
0commits, last 12 months
173days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
36open 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 ★ / 193 ⇿
0Stars
193Forks
18Releases

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.

0408012016020019042018-072022-072026-06
Major 1Minor 8Patch 9

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 04:45 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 13/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIFlask—pyproject.toml
PyPIWTForms—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 71

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 67 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIflask—direct
PyPIflask3.0.3direct
PyPIwtforms—direct
PyPIwtforms3.1.2direct
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.13.4indirect
PyPIblinker1.8.2indirect
PyPIbootstrap-flask—indirect
PyPIbuild1.2.2.post1indirect
PyPIcachetools5.5.2indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.1.31indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.1indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.9indirect
PyPIdocutils0.20.1indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIflake87.1.2indirect
PyPIflask-sqlalchemy—indirect
PyPIflask-sqlalchemy3.1.1indirect
PyPIflask-wtf—indirect
PyPIflask-wtf1.2.1indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.1.1indirect
PyPIidna3.10indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpallets-sphinx-themes2.3.0indirect
PyPIpip-compile-multi2.6.4indirect
PyPIpip-tools7.4.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.12.1indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.2.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.1indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.8.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.5indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytz2025.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.3indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.7indirect
PyPIsphinx7.1.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-page1.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-log-cabinet1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPIsqlalchemy2.0.38indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItoposort1.10indirect
PyPItox4.24.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.12.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.29.3indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.0.6indirect
PyPIwheel0.45.1indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:Bootstrap-Flask@2.5.0 pulls in 8 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 helloflask/bootstrap-flask. Read them side by side →

99apache/supersetApache Superset is a Data Visualization and Data Exploration PlatformExceptional98aristanetworks/avdArista AVD: Architect Validate DeployExceptional97elastic/apm-agent-pythonExceptional96plotly/dashData Apps & Dashboards for Python. No JavaScript Required.Exceptional96slackapi/bolt-pythonA framework to build Slack apps using PythonExceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional

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 statistics — PyPI.