Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 14:47 UTC

lsaint / python-docx-oss

CRUD Word documents with Python

PythonMIT★ 13 stars⑂ 4 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

lsaint/python-docx-oss holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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

Ethan St LeePersonal account
4 followers59 public repossince Jul 2011

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
PyPIpython-docx-oss0.2.02,026240 days agodocxofficeopenxmlword

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18Commit volume24 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year24
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~3.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv0.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases3.2

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
17.5/60Stars13 stars
4/25Forks4 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars13
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.1/80Monthly downloads2,026 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespython-docx-oss
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads2,026
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
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth19 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.401
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
25.2/30PR acceptance26/31 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
5/25Owner reach4 followers of lsaint
24.9/25Track record59 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginlsaint
public_repos59
account_age_days5,528
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history24 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespython-docx-oss
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://python-docx-oss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://python-docx-oss.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?

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
25/25Dependency lockfilesuv.lock
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesuv.lock
manifestsdocs/requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, requirements-dev.txt, requirements-docs.txt, requirements-test.txt, requirements.txt
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: lxml 6.0.2 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 124 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories31
affected_packages8
assessed_packages75
unassessed_packages19
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 3, moderate 3, low 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 75 resolved dependencies against OSV. 19 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.3/40Legible commit history25 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.25
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checkingsrc/docx/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/docx/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (src/docx/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/226 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes33,610
source_files_sampled226
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

13GitHub stars
19contributors
24commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
2bus factor
0open 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:python-docx-oss@0.2.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks

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.

1223344412022-102024-052025-12

Each point covers 3 days.

Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIlxml>=3.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.9.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 94

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 90 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIlxmldirect
PyPIlxml6.0.2direct
PyPItyping-extensionsdirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabasterindirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIbehaveindirect
PyPIbehave1.3.3indirect
PyPIbuildindirect
PyPIcachetools7.0.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography46.0.4indirect
PyPIcssselect1.4.0indirect
PyPIcucumber-expressions19.0.0indirect
PyPIcucumber-tag-expressions9.0.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIid1.5.0indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.4.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja2indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafeindirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.8.0indirect
PyPInh30.3.2indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIparse1.20.2indirect
PyPIparse-type0.6.6indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme0.20.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpyparsingindirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.10.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.408indirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIpytest-coverageindirect
PyPIpytest-mockindirect
PyPIpytest-xdistindirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer43.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich14.3.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIruffindirect
PyPIruff0.14.14indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-book-themeindirect
PyPIsphinx-book-theme1.4.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItoxindirect
PyPItox4.34.1indirect
PyPItwineindirect
PyPItwine6.2.0indirect
PyPItypes-html5lib1.1.11.20251117indirect
PyPItypes-lxmlindirect
PyPItypes-lxml-multi-subclass2026.1.1indirect
PyPItypes-webencodings0.5.0.20251108indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.36.1indirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 75 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 19 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
cryptography46.0.4indirectcritical1350.0.0
lxml6.0.2directhigh26.1.0
soupsieve2.8.3indirecthigh42.8.4
urllib32.6.3indirecthigh42.7.0
idna3.11indirectmoderate23.15
pytest9.0.2indirectmoderate29.0.3
requests2.32.5indirectmoderate22.33.0
pygments2.19.2indirectlow22.20.0

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.

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 statisticsPyPI.