Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 04:43 UTC

mar10 / wsgidav

A generic and extendable WebDAV server based on WSGI

PythonMIT★ 1,217 stars⑂ 173 forkssince Dec 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

mar10/wsgidav holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (89/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (55/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 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

Martin WendtPersonal account
175 followers67 public repossince Dec 2008

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
PyPIwsgidav4.3.5222,6374446 days agowebwsgiwebdavapplicationserver

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 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_push3
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases41 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 46 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~180.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count41
latest_release_tagv4.3.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release46
mean_days_between_releases180.8

Community & Adoption

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

77Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50/60Stars1,217 stars
18.6/25Forks173 forks
7/15Watchers19 watchers
Inputs used
forks173
stars1,217
watchers19
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges9
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
71.3/80Monthly downloads222,637 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageswsgidav
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads222,637
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 91% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth47 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled47
top_contributor_share0.908
How it's scored
41.4/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
20.9/30PR acceptance101/145 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs101
open_issues3
closed_issues200
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.985
closed_unmerged_prs44
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
16.1/25Owner reach175 followers of mar10
25/25Track record67 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers175
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmar10
public_repos67
account_age_days6,445
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 46 days ago
20/20Version history44 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswsgidav
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish46

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

89Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configtox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://wsgidav.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswebdav, python, wsgi, server, webserver
has_wikino
homepagehttps://wsgidav.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://wsgidav.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

80Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
25/25Dependency lockfilesPipfile.lock
20/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesPipfile.lock
manifestsPipfile, pyproject.toml, requirements-dev.txt, requirements.txt, setup.cfg, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowyes
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages7
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:wsgidav@4.3.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 7 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.3/40Legible commit history23 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.23
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile, docs/source/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configtox.ini
11/11Static type checkingmypy.ini
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesPipfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, docs/source/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (mypy.ini)
53.4/55Manageable file sizes2/68 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes66,073
source_files_sampled68
oversized_source_files2
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplessamples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

1,217GitHub stars
47contributors
24commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
41releases
1bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 173 ⇿
0Stars
173Forks
41Releases

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.

0408012016020016952014-032020-052026-08
Major 4Minor 11Patch 16

Each point covers 12 days.

Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdefusedxmlsetup.cfg
PyPIJinja2setup.cfg
PyPIjson5setup.cfg
PyPIPyYAMLsetup.cfg
PyPIpasslibsetup.cfg
PyPIbcrypt>=4.0,<5setup.cfg
All dependencies 121

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 111 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbcryptdirect
PyPIdefusedxmldirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1direct
PyPIjinja2direct
PyPIjinja23.1.4direct
PyPIjson5direct
PyPIjson50.10.0direct
PyPIpasslibdirect
PyPIpyyamldirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIastroid3.3.6indirect
PyPIauthlib1.3.2indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.12.3indirect
PyPIcachetools5.5.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.8.30indirect
PyPIcffi1.17.1indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.0indirect
PyPIcherootindirect
PyPIcheroot10.0.1indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.9indirect
PyPIcryptography44.0.0indirect
PyPIdeprecated1.2.15indirect
PyPIdill0.3.9indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.9indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdparse0.6.4indirect
PyPIfabulist2.0.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIfuroindirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.11indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.43indirect
PyPIidna3.10indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.0.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.1.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.5.0indirect
PyPIlxml5.3.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.2indirect
PyPImarshmallow3.23.1indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.5.0indirect
PyPImypy1.13.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPImyst-parserindirect
PyPInh30.2.19indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpasteindirect
PyPIpaste3.10.1indirect
PyPIpkginfo1.12.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpycparser2.22indirect
PyPIpydantic2.9.2indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.23.4indirect
PyPIpygithub2.5.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.18.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.10.1indirect
PyPIpylint3.3.2indirect
PyPIpynacl1.5.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.8.0indirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest8.3.4indirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPIpytest-cov6.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-html4.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-metadata3.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-pamindirect
PyPIpython-pam2.0.2indirect
PyPIpywin32306indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer44.0indirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIrequests2.32.3indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich13.9.4indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml0.18.6indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml-clib0.2.12indirect
PyPIruffindirect
PyPIruff0.8.2indirect
PyPIsafety3.2.3indirect
PyPIsafety-schemas0.0.10indirect
PyPIsemantic-version2.10.0indirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIsetuptools75.6.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.1indirect
PyPIsnazzy0.2.2indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.6indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-googleanalyticsindirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-mermaidindirect
PyPIstressorindirect
PyPIstressor0.6.0indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.2indirect
PyPItoxindirect
PyPItox4.23.2indirect
PyPItwineindirect
PyPItwine6.0.1indirect
PyPItyper0.15.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.12.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.28.0indirect
PyPIwaitress3.0.2indirect
PyPIwebob1.8.9indirect
PyPIwebtestindirect
PyPIwebtest3.0.2indirect
PyPIwheelindirect
PyPIwheel0.45.1indirect
PyPIwrapt1.17.0indirect
PyPIyabsindirect
PyPIyabs0.6.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:wsgidav@4.3.5 pulls in 7 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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.