Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 02:38 UTC

kakulukia / pypugjs

PugJS syntax adapter for Django, Jinja2 and Mako templates

PythonMIT★ 272 stars⑂ 40 forkssince Feb 2017forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#jade#pug#template-engine#django

kakulukia/pypugjs holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (71/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated 28 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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

kakulukiaPersonal account
22 followers83 public repossince Jun 2009

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
PyPIpypugjs7.0.040,8913960 days agopugpugjstemplateconverter

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

54Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 28 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18Commit volume — 20 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year20
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push28
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 60 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~207.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv7.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release60
mean_days_between_releases207.6
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

57Moderate
How it's scored
39.5/60Stars — 272 stars
13.3/25Forks — 40 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks40
stars272
watchers7
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 (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

77Good
How it's scored
61.5/80Monthly downloads — 40,891 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespypugjs
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads40,891
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?

71Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 41% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 62 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled62
top_contributor_share0.412

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
40.6/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
22.9/30PR acceptance — 26/34 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues2
closed_issues56
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.966
closed_unmerged_prs8
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

56Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.8/25Owner reach — 22 followers of kakulukia
25/25Track record — 83 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers22
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkakulukia
public_repos83
account_age_days6,298
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 60 days ago
20/20Version history — 39 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespypugjs
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish60

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — setup.cfg ([flake8])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

35Weak
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjade, pug, template-engine, django
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak
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
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.5
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_packages2
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:pypugjs@7.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

8Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
8.5/40Legible commit history — 16 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.16
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — setup.cfg ([flake8])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — 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_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/29 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes25,754
source_files_sampled29
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

272GitHub stars
62contributors
20commits, last 12 months
28days since last push
18releases
2bus factor
2open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 40 ⇿
0Stars
40Forks
15Releases

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.

0102030404042018-012022-022026-03
Major 1Minor 6Patch 8

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 02:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests1 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained8 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
1Vulnerabilities9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcharset-normalizer^3.4.9pyproject.toml
PyPIsix^1.17.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 47

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcharset-normalizer—direct
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9direct
PyPIsix—direct
PyPIsix1.17.0direct
PyPIasgiref3.12.1indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.2indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.2indirect
PyPIdjango—indirect
PyPIdjango5.2.16indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.1indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIflask3.1.3indirect
PyPIicecream—indirect
PyPIicecream2.2.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPIjinja2—indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImako—indirect
PyPImako1.3.12indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyramid—indirect
PyPIpyramid-mako—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.5indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItornado—indirect
PyPItornado6.5.7indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.8indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pypugjs@7.0.0 pulls in 2 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 kakulukia/pypugjs. Read them side by side →

97microsoft/fastThe adaptive interface system for modern web experiences.Exceptional84jaredwray/ectoModern Template Consolidation Engine for EJS, Markdown, Pug, Nunjucks, Mustache, and HandlebarsExcellent84Keats/teraA template engine for Rust based on Jinja2/DjangoExcellent86mitsuhiko/minijinjaMiniJinja is a powerful but minimal dependency template engine for Rust compatible with Jinja/Jinja2Excellent84rust-sailfish/sailfishSimple, small, and extremely fast template engine for RustExcellent91askama-rs/askamaA template rendering engine based on Jinja, generating type-safe Rust code at compile time.Excellent

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.