Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 07:46 UTC

lepture / shibuya

A responsive, good looking with modern design documentation theme for Sphinx, with great supports for many sphinx extensions.

CSS · HTML · PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 316 stars⑂ 22 forkssince Feb 2023View on GitHub ↗

KindPluginhow this is determined

#documentation #sphinx-doc #sphinx-theme

lepture/shibuya holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Security (64/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Hsiaoming YangPersonal account

8,832 followers192 public repossince May 2010@hsiaoming

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	shibuya	2026.7.12	130,346	77	62 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 8 days ago
13.2/36	Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 149 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	149
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	8
active_weeks_last_year	19

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 75 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 62 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~23.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	75
latest_release_tag	2026.7.12
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	62
mean_days_between_releases	23.3

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?

66Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

55Moderate

How it's scored

40.5/60	Stars — 316 stars
11/25	Forks — 22 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	22
stars	316
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

65Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

85Excellent

How it's scored

68.2/80	Monthly downloads — 130,346 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	shibuya
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	130,346
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?

73Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	10
top_contributor_share	0.932

Issue & PR responsiveness

97Exceptional

How it's scored

40.3/42	Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
28.6/30	PR acceptance — 41/43 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	41
open_issues	4
closed_issues	94
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	16
prs_decided_30d	17
issue_closed_ratio	0.959
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

75Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25	Owner reach — 8,832 followers of lepture
25/25	Track record — 192 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	8,832
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	lepture
public_repos	192
account_age_days	5,950

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 62 days ago
20/20	Version history — 77 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	shibuya
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	62

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://shibuya.lepture.com
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	documentation, sphinx-doc, sphinx-theme
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://shibuya.lepture.com
docs_site	https://shibuya.lepture.com
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

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

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	23
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:shibuya@2026.7.12 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 23 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.

65Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 97 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.97
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	1,656

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

41Weak

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
0/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — CSS without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/25 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	CSS
largest_source_bytes	6,919
source_files_sampled	25
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — notebooks

Inputs used

example_dirs	notebooks
has_mcp_signal	no
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

316GitHub stars

10contributors

149commits, last 12 months

8days since last push

75releases

1bus factor

4open issues

npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 22 ⇿

0Stars

22Forks

54Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 0Patch 54

Each point covers 3 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 07:45 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9	CI-Tests	13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
2	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	Sphinx	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pygments-styles	`—`	pyproject.toml
npm	@radix-ui/colors	`^3.0.0`	static/package.json
npm	iconify-icon	`^3.0.0`	static/package.json

All dependencies 98

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 94 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@radix-ui/colors	`3.0.0`	direct
npm	iconify-icon	`3.0.2`	direct
PyPI	pygments-styles	`—`	direct
PyPI	sphinx	`—`	direct
npm	@esbuild/aix-ppc64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ia32	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-loong64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-mips64el	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ppc64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-riscv64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-s390x	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openharmony-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/sunos-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-ia32	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@iconify/types	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/gen-mapping	`0.3.13`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/remapping	`2.3.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/resolve-uri	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.5.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/trace-mapping	`0.3.31`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-android-arm64	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-darwin-arm64	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-darwin-x64	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-freebsd-x64	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-linux-arm-glibc	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-linux-arm-musl	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-linux-arm64-glibc	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-linux-arm64-musl	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-linux-x64-glibc	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-linux-x64-musl	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-win32-arm64	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-win32-ia32	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@parcel/watcher-win32-x64	`2.5.1`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/cli	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/node	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-android-arm64	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-arm64	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-x64	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-freebsd-x64	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-gnu	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-musl	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-gnu	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-musl	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-wasm32-wasi	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-arm64-msvc	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-x64-msvc	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	braces	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	detect-libc	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	detect-libc	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	enhanced-resolve	`5.21.6`	indirect
npm	esbuild	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	fill-range	`7.1.1`	indirect
npm	graceful-fs	`4.2.11`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	is-number	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	jiti	`2.7.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-android-arm64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-arm64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-x64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-freebsd-x64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-musl	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-gnu	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-musl	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-x64-msvc	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.30.21`	indirect
npm	micromatch	`4.0.8`	indirect
npm	mri	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	node-addon-api	`7.1.1`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	tailwindcss	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	tapable	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	to-regex-range	`5.0.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:shibuya@2026.7.12 pulls in 23 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records