Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 12:08 UTC

jdiego / django-ldapdb

django-ldapdb, an LDAP database backend for Django

PythonBSD-2-Clause★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2021forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

jdiego/django-ldapdb holds a health index of 17 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (44/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (12/100). It was last updated 1268 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

17
overall / 100
Critical

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.

17
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 23 is calibrated to 17 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Diego SaraivaPersonal account
23 followers46 public repossince Jan 2012@ifrn-oficial

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-ldapdb21.5.3.dev0-21713 days agodjangoldapdatabaseldapdb

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

13Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 1,268 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_share—
days_since_last_push1,268
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

32At Risk
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 17 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,101 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~161 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tag1.5.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,101
mean_days_between_releases161
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

44Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.44

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
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_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

55Moderate
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 jdiego
24.2/25Track record — 46 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers23
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjdiego
public_repos46
account_age_days5,289
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

61Moderate
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,713 days ago
12/20Version history — 2 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdjango-ldapdb2
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,713

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

12Critical · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

1Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
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 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — 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 — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

31At Risk · 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)

40Weak
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. 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 — 0/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes34,987
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files0

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

0GitHub stars
12contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,268days since last push
17releases
2bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-15 12:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIDjango>=2.2setup.cfg
PyPIpython-ldap>=3.0setup.cfg
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
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 jdiego/django-ldapdb. Read them side by side →

100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional99wagtail/wagtailA Django content management system focused on flexibility and user experienceExceptional98django/djangoThe Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.Exceptional98lancedb/lancedbDeveloper-friendly OSS embedded retrieval library for multimodal AI. Search More; Manage Less.Exceptional98netbox-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/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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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