Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 18:41 UTC

mgeier / sphinx-last-updated-by-git

:watch: Get the "last updated" time for each Sphinx page from Git

PythonBSD-2-Clause★ 60 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Apr 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#sphinx-doc#sphinx-extension

mgeier/sphinx-last-updated-by-git holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (60/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (29/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Matthias GeierPersonal account
237 followers170 public repossince Apr 2011@ai-coustics

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
PyPIsphinx-last-updated-by-git0.3.8503,51716708 days agosphinxgit

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
13.8/18Commit volume — 33 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year33
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16

Release discipline

52Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 687 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~146.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tag0.3.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release687
mean_days_between_releases146.5
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

39Weak
How it's scored
28.7/60Stars — 60 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars60
watchers3
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 (BSD-2-Clause)
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

95Exceptional
How it's scored
76/80Monthly downloads — 503,517 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessphinx-last-updated-by-git
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads503,517
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 77% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.774

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good
How it's scored
33.1/42Issue resolution — 79% of issues closed
27.8/30PR acceptance — 89/96 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs89
open_issues4
closed_issues15
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.789
closed_unmerged_prs7
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

65Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.1/25Owner reach — 237 followers of mgeier
25/25Track record — 170 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers237
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmgeier
public_repos170
account_age_days5,588
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

79Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 708 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessphinx-last-updated-by-git
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish708

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

66Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssphinx-doc, sphinx-extension
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

45Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages22
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:sphinx-last-updated-by-git@0.3.8 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 22 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.

29At Risk · 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)

41Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes12,885
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

60GitHub stars
7contributors
33commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
4open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 18:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIsphinx>=1.8pyproject.toml
All dependencies 73

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 69 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIsphinx5.3.0direct
PyPIsphinx8.1.3direct
PyPIsphinx9.0.4direct
PyPIsphinx9.1.0direct
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.14.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.10.7indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.1indirect
PyPIcoverage7.2.7indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.19indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata6.7.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPIpackaging24.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.2.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.17.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest7.4.4indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.5indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIpytest-cov4.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.15.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.7.1indirect
PyPItzdata2026.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.15.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:sphinx-last-updated-by-git@0.3.8 pulls in 22 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with mgeier/sphinx-last-updated-by-git. Read them side by side →

88mgaitan/sphinxcontrib-mermaidMermaid diagrams in yours sphinx powered docsExcellent69spatialaudio/nbsphinx:ledger: Sphinx source parser for Jupyter notebooksGood97pydata/pydata-sphinx-themeA clean, three-column Sphinx theme with Bootstrap for the PyData communityExceptional96ansys/ansys-sphinx-themeAnsys corporate theme for Sphinx pagesExceptional94sphinx-gallery/sphinx-gallerySphinx extension for automatic generation of an example galleryExceptional89adamtheturtle/sphinx-substitution-extensionsExtensions for Sphinx which allow substitutionsExcellent

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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