Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 10:12 UTC

jaywhj / mkdocs-materialx

MaterialX, the next generation of mkdocs-material

Python · HTML · TypeScriptMIT★ 158 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Nov 2025View on GitHub ↗

jaywhj/mkdocs-materialx holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 28 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AaronPersonal account
23 followers76 public repossince Mar 2014

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
PyPImkdocs-materialx10.2.023,1101850 days agodocumentationmkdocstheme

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 28 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence — 44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 441 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year441
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push28
active_weeks_last_year44

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 49 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~15.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tag10.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release49
mean_days_between_releases15.4
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.6/60Stars — 158 stars
6.5/25Forks — 7 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars158
watchers0
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58.2/80Monthly downloads — 23,110 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmkdocs-materialx
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads23,110
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 97 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 68 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled97
top_contributor_share0.835
How it's scored
39.6/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance — 87/90 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs87
open_issues1
closed_issues17
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.944
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
9.9/25Owner reach — 23 followers of jaywhj
25/25Track record — 76 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers23
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjaywhj
public_repos76
account_age_days4,559
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 50 days ago
20/20Version history — 18 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmkdocs-materialx
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish50

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://jaywhj.github.io/mkdocs-materialx/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://jaywhj.github.io/mkdocs-materialx/
docs_sitehttps://jaywhj.github.io/mkdocs-materialx/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 68 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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 — 47 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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_packages32
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:mkdocs-materialx@10.2.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 32 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 instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 85 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.85
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 2/342 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes677,463
source_files_sampled342
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

158GitHub stars
97contributors
441commits, last 12 months
28days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-16: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 158 stars today.
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 142 ★ / 7 ⇿
142Stars
7Forks
16Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-16. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

0255075100125150142782025-122026-032026-07
Major 0Minor 1Patch 15
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 10:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 68 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 commit(s) and 5 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
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
0Vulnerabilities47 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 21
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmclipboard^2.0.11package.json
npmescape-html^1.0.3package.json
npmfocus-visible^5.2.1package.json
npmfuzzaldrin-plus^0.6.0package.json
npmlunr^2.3.9package.json
npmlunr-languages^1.20.0package.json
npmrxjs^7.8.2package.json
PyPImkdocs>=1.6,<=1.6.1pyproject.toml
PyPIproperdocs>=1.6.5pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2>=3.1pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdown>=3.2pyproject.toml
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions>=1.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpygments>=2.16pyproject.toml
PyPIpymdown-extensions>=10.2pyproject.toml
PyPIbabel>=2.16pyproject.toml
PyPIcolorama>=0.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpaginate>=0.5pyproject.toml
PyPIbackrefs>=5.7.post1pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.30pyproject.toml
PyPIpagefind>=1.5.2,<2pyproject.toml
PyPImkdocs-document-dates==3.8.7pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mkdocs-materialx@10.2.0 pulls in 32 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.