Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 11:36 UTC

knifecake / django-anchor

Attach files to Django models, inspired by Ruby on Rails' Active Storage.

PythonMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#attachments#django#files#storage

knifecake/django-anchor holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (91/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Elias HernandisPersonal account
37 followers29 public repossince Apr 2012

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-anchor0.9.35,387150 days agodjangofilesattachments

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

61Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume — 32 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~73.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv0.9.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases73.1
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

14Critical
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars8
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, readthedocs.org
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

62Moderate
How it's scored
49.8/80Monthly downloads — 5,387 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdjango-anchor
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,387
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

61Moderate
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
21.3/30PR acceptance — 22/31 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs22
open_issues1
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs9
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.4/25Owner reach — 37 followers of knifecake
22.8/25Track record — 29 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers37
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginknifecake
public_repos29
account_age_days5,300
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 15 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdjango-anchor
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://django-anchor.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsattachments, django, files, storage
has_wikino
homepagehttps://django-anchor.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
docs_sitehttps://django-anchor.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak
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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
5.2/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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 — 25 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

56Moderate
How it's scored
9.5/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: pillow 12.2.0 (critical 9.1)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
32.6/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 104 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories50
affected_packages4
assessed_packages49
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 3
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 49 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

57Moderate
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.9/40Legible commit history — 22 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.222
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes436

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

79Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 8 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 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
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.08
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/88 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes10,018
source_files_sampled88
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

8GitHub stars
1contributors
32commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:django-anchor@0.9.3; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 11:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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
0Vulnerabilities25 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdjango>=4.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow>=9.5pyproject.toml
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 47 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdjango6.0.9direct
PyPIpillow12.2.0direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIasgiref3.11.1indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIboto31.43.36indirect
PyPIbotocore1.43.36indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.3indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdjango-environ0.14.0indirect
PyPIdjango-storages1.14.6indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.4indirect
PyPIfreezegun1.5.5indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjmespath1.1.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.4.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIs3transfer0.19.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.5indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItzdata2026.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.5.1indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 49 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pillow12.2.0directcritical2612.3.0
sqlparse0.5.5indirecthigh100.6.0
urllib32.7.0indirecthigh62.8.0
virtualenv21.5.1indirecthigh821.7.13

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 knifecake/django-anchor. Read them side by side →

86codingjoe/django-s3fileA lightweight file upload input for Django and Amazon S3Excellent84thephpleague/flysystemAbstraction for local and remote filesystemsExcellent84filegator/filegatorPowerful Multi-User File ManagerExcellent99WeblateOrg/weblateWeb based localization tool with tight version control integration.Exceptional99getsentry/sentryDeveloper-first error tracking and performance monitoringExceptional99django/djangoThe Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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