Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:38 UTC

laurents / slowapi

A rate limiter for Starlette and FastAPI

PythonMIT★ 2,033 stars⑂ 123 forkssince Feb 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#starlette#fastapi#rate-limiter#asgi#python#uvicorn

laurents/slowapi holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (70/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Laurent SavaetePersonal account
51 followers49 public repossince May 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 publish
PyPIslowapi0.1.10-1135 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

48Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume — 6 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year2

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 35 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.1.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release35
mean_days_between_releases—
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

Popularity & adoption

78Good
How it's scored
53.7/60Stars — 2,033 stars
17.4/25Forks — 123 forks
6.4/15Watchers — 15 watchers
Inputs used
forks123
stars2,033
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
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_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

44Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 26 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled26
top_contributor_share0.506

Issue & PR responsiveness

61Moderate
How it's scored
22.9/42Issue resolution — 55% of issues closed
19.4/30PR acceptance — 66/102 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs66
open_issues54
closed_issues65
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.546
closed_unmerged_prs36
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.3/25Owner reach — 51 followers of laurentS
24.4/25Track record — 49 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers51
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginlaurentS
public_repos49
account_age_days5,176
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 35 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesslowapi
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish35

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

50Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/slowapi/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsstarlette, fastapi, rate-limiter, asgi, python, uvicorn
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/slowapi/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/slowapi/
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

46Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 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
2.2/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 74 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

39Weak · 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)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — slowapi/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsslowapi/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (slowapi/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/10 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes35,282
source_files_sampled10
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,033GitHub stars
26contributors
6commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
54open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-18 13:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1CI-Tests1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
0Vulnerabilities74 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIlimits>=2.3pyproject.toml
PyPIredis^3.4.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 80

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIlimits1.5.1direct
PyPIredis3.5.3direct
PyPIredis4.3.6direct
PyPIanyio3.6.2indirect
PyPIappdirs1.4.3indirect
PyPIatomicwrites1.3.0indirect
PyPIattrs19.3.0indirect
PyPIblack23.3.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2022.12.7indirect
PyPIchardet3.0.4indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.1.0indirect
PyPIclick7.1.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.3indirect
PyPIcoverage6.5.0indirect
PyPIdataclasses0.6indirect
PyPIdeprecated1.2.13indirect
PyPIfastapi0.65.2indirect
PyPIflake84.0.1indirect
PyPIfuture0.18.3indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIh110.14.0indirect
PyPIhiro0.5.1indirect
PyPIhttpcore0.16.3indirect
PyPIhttpx0.23.3indirect
PyPIidna2.9indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata1.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata4.2.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources5.12.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIisort4.3.21indirect
PyPIjinja22.11.3indirect
PyPIjoblib0.16.0indirect
PyPIlivereload2.6.3indirect
PyPIlunr0.5.8indirect
PyPIlxml4.9.1indirect
PyPImarkdown3.2.2indirect
PyPImarkupsafe1.1.1indirect
PyPImccabe0.6.1indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkautodoc0.1.0indirect
PyPImkdocs1.2.3indirect
PyPImock4.0.1indirect
PyPImore-itertools8.2.0indirect
PyPImypy0.761indirect
PyPImypy-extensions0.4.3indirect
PyPInltk3.6.6indirect
PyPIpackaging20.3indirect
PyPIpathspec0.7.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs3.2.0indirect
PyPIpluggy0.13.1indirect
PyPIpy1.10.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.8.0indirect
PyPIpydantic1.6.2indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.4.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing2.4.6indirect
PyPIpytest5.3.5indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.8.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml5.4indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag0.1indirect
PyPIregex2020.2.20indirect
PyPIrequests2.23.0indirect
PyPIrfc39861.5.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools65.7.0indirect
PyPIsix1.14.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.0indirect
PyPIstarlette0.22.0indirect
PyPIstarlette0.25.0indirect
PyPItoml0.10.0indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItornado6.0.4indirect
PyPItqdm4.50.0indirect
PyPItyped-ast1.4.1indirect
PyPItypes-redis3.5.18indirect
PyPItyping-extensions3.7.4.1indirect
PyPIurllib31.26.5indirect
PyPIwatchdog3.0.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.1.8indirect
PyPIwrapt1.15.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.1.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.15.0indirect
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 laurents/slowapi. Read them side by side →

98strawberry-graphql/strawberryA GraphQL library for Python that leverages type annotations 🍓Exceptional98fastapi/fastapiFastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for productionExceptional99pydantic/logfireAI observability platform for production LLM and agent systems.Exceptional99litestar-org/litestarLight, flexible and extensible ASGI framework | Built to scaleExceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional97fastapi/sqlmodelSQL databases in Python, designed for simplicity, compatibility, and robustness.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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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