Public recordGood
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 14:29 UTC
mvantellingen / python-zeep
A Python SOAP client
mvantellingen/python-zeep holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (71/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (60/100). It was last updated 29 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
75
overall / 100Software 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.
75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Michael van TellingenPersonal account
226 followers52 public repossince Apr 2010@labd
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | zeep | 4.3.3 | - | 68 | 29 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
65
Development activity
52Moderate
How it's scored
| 28.8/36 | Push recency — last push 29 days ago |
| 2.1/36 | Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits |
| 10.8/18 | Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 15 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 29 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 3 |
Release discipline
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 7 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 29 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~294.7 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 7 |
| latest_release_tag | 4.3.3 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 29 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 294.7 |
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?
71
Popularity & adoption
87Excellent
How it's scored
| 53.6/60 | Stars — 2,005 stars |
| 23.2/25 | Forks — 609 forks |
| 9.8/15 | Watchers — 59 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 609 |
| stars | 2,005 |
| watchers | 59 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
52Moderate
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 16.9/22.5 | License — license file present, not a recognized license |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 7.2/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | yes |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
60
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 2.8/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 100 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 100 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.876 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
56Moderate
How it's scored
| 27.1/42 | Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed |
| 18.8/30 | PR acceptance — 200/319 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 3/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 200 |
| open_issues | 383 |
| closed_issues | 699 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.646 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 119 |
| 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
64Moderate
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 16.9/25 | Owner reach — 226 followers of mvantellingen |
| 24.6/25 | Track record — 52 public repos, account ~16 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 226 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | mvantellingen |
| public_repos | 52 |
| account_age_days | 5,937 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 29 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 68 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | zeep |
| ecosystems | pypi |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 29 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
70
Engineering practices
56Moderate
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 2 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 6.4/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 2/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | yes |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — http://docs.python-zeep.org |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 4 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | python, soap, soap-client, wsdl |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | http://docs.python-zeep.org |
| docs_site | http://docs.python-zeep.org |
| 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?
61
Security posture
61Moderate
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — no data |
| 0.2/2.5 | CI-Tests — 1 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 1.5/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.2/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
| 1.5/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3 |
| 4.5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 16 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 2 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 6.1 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.
62
Agent context & guidance
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| 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)
87Excellent
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile, examples/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — mypy.ini, src/zeep/py.typed |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no data |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | uv.lock |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | Makefile, docs/Makefile, examples/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | mypy.ini, src/zeep/py.typed |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Code legibility for models
82Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/45 | Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (mypy.ini, src/zeep/py.typed) |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/121 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | 52,491 |
| source_files_sampled | 121 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| 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
2,005GitHub stars
100contributors
15commits, last 12 months
29days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
383open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate
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).
| 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 |
| 1 | CI-Tests | 1 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 2 | Code-Review | Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 35 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 9 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 10 | Pinned-Dependencies | all dependencies are pinned |
| 3 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3 |
| 9 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 7
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | attrs | >=17.2.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | isodate | >=0.5.4 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | lxml | >=4.6.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | platformdirs | >=1.4.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | requests | >=2.7.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | requests-toolbelt | >=0.7.1 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | requests-file | >=1.5.1 | pyproject.toml |
All dependencies 71
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | attrs | — | direct |
| PyPI | attrs | 26.1.0 | direct |
| PyPI | isodate | — | direct |
| PyPI | isodate | 0.7.2 | direct |
| PyPI | lxml | — | direct |
| PyPI | lxml | 6.1.1 | direct |
| PyPI | platformdirs | — | direct |
| PyPI | platformdirs | 4.10.0 | direct |
| PyPI | requests | — | direct |
| PyPI | requests | 2.34.2 | direct |
| PyPI | requests-file | — | direct |
| PyPI | requests-file | 3.0.1 | direct |
| PyPI | requests-toolbelt | — | direct |
| PyPI | requests-toolbelt | 1.0.0 | direct |
| PyPI | alabaster | 1.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | anyio | 4.14.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | babel | 2.18.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | backports-asyncio-runner | 1.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | certifi | 2026.6.17 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 3.4.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | colorama | 0.4.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | coverage | 7.14.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | docutils | 0.21.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | docutils | 0.22.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | exceptiongroup | 1.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | flake8 | 7.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | flake8-blind-except | 0.2.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | flake8-debugger | 4.1.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | flake8-imports | 0.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | freezegun | 1.5.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | h11 | 0.16.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | httpcore | 1.0.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | httpx | — | indirect |
| PyPI | httpx | 0.28.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | idna | 3.18 | indirect |
| PyPI | imagesize | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | iniconfig | 2.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | isort | 5.13.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | jinja2 | 3.1.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | markupsafe | 3.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | packaging | 26.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pluggy | 1.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pretend | 1.0.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | pygments | 2.20.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | 9.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-asyncio | 1.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-cov | 7.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-httpx | 0.36.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-dateutil | 2.9.0.post0 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests-mock | 1.12.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | roman-numerals | 4.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | ruff | 0.15.17 | indirect |
| PyPI | setuptools | — | indirect |
| PyPI | six | 1.17.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | snowballstemmer | 3.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinx | — | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinx | 8.1.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinx | 9.0.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinx | 9.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinxcontrib-applehelp | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinxcontrib-devhelp | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinxcontrib-jsmath | 1.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinxcontrib-qthelp | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | tomli | 2.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-extensions | 4.15.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.7.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | xmlsec | — | indirect |
| PyPI | xmlsec | 1.3.17 | indirect |
| PyPI | zeep | 4.3.3 | indirect |
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.