Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 18:06 UTC

kdeldycke / click-extra

🌈 Drop-in replacement for Click to make user-friendly and colorful CLI

PythonGPL-2.0★ 121 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#click#cloup#colorization#python-tabulate#ansi-colors#pygments#ansi-escape-codes#cli-framework#config-file#configuration-file#hjson#ini#json5#pytest-plugin#python-cli#sphinx-extension#tabulate#toml-parser#click-extension#click-plugin

kdeldycke/click-extra holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (62/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kevin DeldyckePersonal account
2,170 followers57 public repossince Nov 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
PyPIclick-extra9.1.0-1579 days agoansi-colorsansi-escape-codescli-frameworkclickclick-extensionclick-plugincloupcolorizationconfig-fileconfiguration-filehjsoninijson5pygmentspytest-pluginpython-clipython-tabulatesphinx-extensiontabulatetoml-parser

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

97Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,834 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,834
human_commit_share0.84
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year48

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 9 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv9.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release9
mean_days_between_releases4.2

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

42Weak
How it's scored
33.7/60Stars — 121 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars121
watchers1
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges15
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.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)

35Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.895

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
22.2/30PR acceptance — 1,340/1,813 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,340
open_issues1
closed_issues120
prs_merged_7d11
prs_decided_7d11
prs_merged_30d36
prs_decided_30d39
issue_closed_ratio0.992
closed_unmerged_prs473
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2

Ownership & stewardship

74Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
24/25Owner reach — 2,170 followers of kdeldycke
24.8/25Track record — 57 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,170
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkdeldycke
public_repos57
account_age_days6,130
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 9 days ago
20/20Version history — 157 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesclick-extra
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish9

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://kdeldycke.github.io/click-extra
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsclick, cloup, colorization, python-tabulate, ansi-colors, pygments, ansi-escape-codes, cli-framework, config-file, configuration-file, hjson, ini, json5, pytest-plugin, python-cli, sphinx-extension, tabulate, toml-parser, click-extension, click-plugin
has_wikino
homepagehttps://kdeldycke.github.io/click-extra
docs_sitehttps://kdeldycke.github.io/click-extra
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 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 — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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_packages9
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:click-extra@9.1.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 9 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

56Moderate
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — claude.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.4/40Legible commit history — 18 of 84 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.214
agent_instruction_filesclaude.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes13,753

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — click_extra/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsclick_extra/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

75Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (click_extra/py.typed)
47.8/55Manageable file sizes — 16/122 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes160,601
source_files_sampled122
oversized_source_files16

Key facts

121GitHub stars
10contributors
1,834commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-18: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 121 stars today.
  • pypi download statistics for 'click-extra' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 121 ★ / 12 ⇿
121Stars
12Forks
100Releases

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 2026-07-18. 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.

02550751001251211162021-122024-042026-09
Major 4Minor 42Patch 54

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 18:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 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 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIboltons>=26.2pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.4.1pyproject.toml
PyPIcloup>=3.0.7pyproject.toml
PyPIdeepmerge>=1.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPIextra-platforms>=13.4pyproject.toml
PyPItabulate>=0.9pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>=2pyproject.toml
PyPIwcmatch>=10pyproject.toml
PyPIwcwidth>=0.8.3pyproject.toml
All dependencies 102

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 93 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIboltons26.2.0direct
PyPIclick8.5.0direct
PyPIcloup3.1.0direct
PyPIdeepmerge3.0.1direct
PyPIextra-platforms13.7.0direct
PyPItabulate0.10.0direct
PyPItomli2.4.1direct
PyPIwcmatch11.0.1direct
PyPIwcwidth0.8.3direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackports-strenum1.3.1indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIbracex3.0.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIclick-extra9.2.0.dev0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIflask3.1.3indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIhjson3.1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjson-with-comments1.3.0indirect
PyPIjson50.15.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.6.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-click0.9.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImyst-parser4.0.1indirect
PyPImyst-parser5.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.7indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-github-actions-annotate-failures0.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest-httpserver1.1.5indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly5.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9.2indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints3.13.5indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-datatables1.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-design0.7.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jquery4.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-mermaid2.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxext-opengraph0.13.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItypes-boltons26.1.0.20260724indirect
PyPItypes-docutils0.23.0.20260827indirect
PyPItypes-jsonschema4.26.0.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-pygments2.21.0.20260819indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260815indirect
PyPItypes-tabulate0.10.0.20260508indirect
PyPItypes-xmltodict1.0.1.20260518indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.8indirect
PyPIxmltodict1.0.4indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:click-extra@9.1.0 pulls in 9 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 kdeldycke/click-extra. Read them side by side →

71basefoundry/base-cliThe production lifecycle layer for Click and Typer Python CLIs.Good65click-contrib/click-option-groupOption groups missing in ClickGood63click-contrib/sphinx-clickA Sphinx plugin to automatically document click-based applicationsModerate41likianta/argsense-cliNew command line interface based on Python Rich library.Weak80remkop/picocliPicocli is a modern framework for building powerful, user-friendly, GraalVM-enabled command line apps with ease. It supports colors, autocompletion, subcommands, and more. In 1 source file so apps can include as source & avoid adding a dependency. Written in Java, usable from Groovy, Kotlin, Scala, etc. Excellent78unjs/confboxCompact YAML, TOML, JSONC and JSON5 and INI parser and serializerGood

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.