Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:49 UTC

mitmproxy / pdoc

API Documentation for Python Projects

Python · JinjaMIT-0★ 2,513 stars⑂ 228 forkssince Aug 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#documentation#python#docstrings#docs#pdoc#api-documentation#python3#api#docstring#documentation-tool#documentation-generator

mitmproxy/pdoc holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

mitmproxyOrganization
639 followers20 public repossince Jun 2013

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIpdoc16.0.0-114263 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

49Weak
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 17 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
12.9/18Commit volume — 26 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year26
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

58Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 93 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 263 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~54.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count93
latest_release_tagv16.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release263
mean_days_between_releases54.3
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?

84Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

83Excellent
How it's scored
55.2/60Stars — 2,513 stars
19.6/25Forks — 228 forks
8.3/15Watchers — 32 watchers
Inputs used
forks228
stars2,513
watchers32
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT-0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

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)

41Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 61% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 62 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled62
top_contributor_share0.607

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
37.5/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
24.9/30PR acceptance — 331/399 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs331
open_issues50
closed_issues417
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.893
closed_unmerged_prs68
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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
20.2/25Owner reach — 639 followers of mitmproxy
21.6/25Track record — 20 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers639
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginmitmproxy
public_repos20
account_age_days4,787
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 263 days ago
20/20Version history — 114 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespdoc
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish263

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

66Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 27 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pdoc.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 11 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdocumentation, python, docstrings, docs, pdoc, api-documentation, python3, api, docstring, documentation-tool, documentation-generator
has_wikino
homepagehttps://pdoc.dev
docs_sitehttps://pdoc.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

67Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 26 out of 27 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 32 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
3/7.5Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

52Moderate · 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)

62Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — pdoc/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configspdoc/py.typed
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

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pdoc/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/87 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes50,382
source_files_sampled87
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

2,513GitHub stars
62contributors
26commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
93releases
1bus factor
50open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.7 / 10
6.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 13:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
9CI-Tests26 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 9/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4Vulnerabilities6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIJinja2>= 2.11.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpygments>= 2.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIMarkupSafe>= 1.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdown2>= 2.5.4pyproject.toml
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPImarkdown22.5.4direct
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3direct
PyPIpygments2.20.0direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIcachetools6.2.1indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.11.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.0indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.142.4indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy1.18.2indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpdoc-pyo3-sample-library1.0.11indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.12.3indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.4indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.10.0indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIruff0.14.2indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItox4.32.0indirect
PyPItox-uv1.29.0indirect
PyPItypes-docutils0.22.2.20251006indirect
PyPItypes-pygments2.19.0.20250809indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuv0.9.6indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.35.3indirect
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 mitmproxy/pdoc. Read them side by side →

99scalar/scalarScalar is an open-source API platform:　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　🌐 Modern REST API Client　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　📖 Beautiful API References　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　✨ 1st-Class OpenAPI/Swagger SupportExceptional98fastapi/fastapiFastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for productionExceptional99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99litestar-org/litestarLight, flexible and extensible ASGI framework | Built to scaleExceptional99quantumlib/CirqPython framework for creating, editing, and running Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) circuits.Exceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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