Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 08:55 UTC

marcuxyz / flask-mvc2

You can use the mvc-flask extension to turn on MVC pattern in your applications.

HTML · PythonMIT★ 55 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Sep 2021View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

#flask #flask-extensions #flask-mvc #flask-mvc-structure #flask-mvc-template #flask-template

marcuxyz/flask-mvc2 holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Marcus ViníciusPersonal account

257 followers36 public repossince Nov 2014

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	Tags
PyPI	flask-mvc2points to another repo — not scored	0.5.0	63	8	50 days ago	architecture cli crud flask flask-extension generator mvc rest-api scaffold web-framework

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

56Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 7 days ago
2.8/36	Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18	Commit volume — 10 commits in the last year
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

commits_last_year	10
human_commit_share	0.893
days_since_last_push	7
active_weeks_last_year	4

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 50 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~46.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	9
latest_release_tag	v0.5.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	50
mean_days_between_releases	46.9

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?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

37Weak

How it's scored

28.1/60	Stars — 55 stars
5.8/25	Forks — 6 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	6
stars	55
watchers	4
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	11
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

48Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
20.4/30	PR acceptance — 47/69 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	47
open_issues	0
closed_issues	24
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	22
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.3/25	Owner reach — 257 followers of marcuxyz
23.4/25	Track record — 36 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	257
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	marcuxyz
public_repos	36
account_age_days	4,331

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
10/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
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://marcuxyz.github.io/flask-mvc2/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 6 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	flask, flask-extensions, flask-mvc, flask-mvc-structure, flask-mvc-template, flask-template
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://marcuxyz.github.io/flask-mvc2/
docs_site	https://marcuxyz.github.io/flask-mvc2/
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?

57Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
1.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
6/7.5	Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5	Packaging — no data
2.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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
0.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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	8
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:flask-mvc2@0.5.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 8 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 56 of 67 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.836
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

74Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 75
8/8	Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 75 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
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	0.107

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — HTML without a type-check config
54.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/74 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	HTML
largest_source_bytes	677,463
source_files_sampled	74
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

55GitHub stars

1contributors

10commits, last 12 months

7days since last push

9releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi package 'flask-mvc2' points at a different repository (https://github.com/marcuxyz/flask-mvc); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿

0Stars

6Forks

1Releases

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 1Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

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 · 2026-09-11 08:55 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
5	CI-Tests	8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
8	Maintained	8 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
5	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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
1	Vulnerabilities	9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	Flask	`>=3.0.0,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click	`>=8.0.0,<9.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	Jinja2	`>=3.1.0,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	method-override	`>=0.3.0,<0.4.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 92

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 88 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	direct
PyPI	flask	`3.1.3`	direct
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	direct
PyPI	method-override	`0.3.0`	direct
PyPI	asttokens	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	backrefs	`7.0`	indirect
PyPI	bandit	`1.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	black	`25.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	blinker	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.6.17`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	cssselect	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	decorator	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	editorconfig	`0.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	executing	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.29.7`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`6.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	flask-mvc2	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	flask-sqlalchemy	`3.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.19`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	ipython	`8.39.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`5.13.2`	indirect
PyPI	itsdangerous	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	jedi	`0.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsbeautifier	`2.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-include	`0.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	matplotlib-inline	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-get-deps	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.7.6`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-mermaid2-plugin	`1.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.20.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	paginate	`0.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	parso	`0.8.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pexpect	`4.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	prompt-toolkit	`3.0.52`	indirect
PyPI	ptyprocess	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	pure-eval	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	pytokens	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`13.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`83.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	splinter	`0.19.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.0.51`	indirect
PyPI	stack-data	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	stevedore	`5.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	traitlets	`5.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`1.26.20`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcwidth	`0.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	werkzeug	`3.1.8`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:flask-mvc2@0.5.0 pulls in 8 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