Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 22:28 UTC

pallets-eco / flask-mail

Flask-Mail adds SMTP mail sending to your Flask applications

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 642 stars⑂ 179 forkssince Feb 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

pallets-eco/flask-mail holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (86/100) and lowest on Vitality (32/100). It was last updated 92 days ago. 5 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Pallets EcosystemOrganization · verified domain
351 followers38 public repossince May 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIFlask-Mail0.10.01,323,19628839 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

32At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 92 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9/18Commit volume — 9 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_year9
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push92
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 839 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 1 out of the last 1 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tag0.10.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release839
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

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

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.5/60Stars — 642 stars
18.8/25Forks — 179 forks
7.7/15Watchers — 25 watchers
Inputs used
forks179
stars642
watchers25
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 1,323,196 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesFlask-Mail
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,323,196
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?

79Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
45.9/54Bus factor — 5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 17% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 26 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor5
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.171
How it's scored
37.7/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
15.8/30PR acceptance — 59/112 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs59
open_issues13
closed_issues113
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.897
closed_unmerged_prs53
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
18.3/25Owner reach — 351 followers of pallets-eco
22.2/25Track record — 38 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers351
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginpallets-eco
public_repos38
account_age_days1,934
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 839 days ago
20/20Version history — 28 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesFlask-Mail
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish839

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://flask-mail.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsemail, flask, flask-mail, pallets, pallets-eco, python, smtp
has_wikino
homepagehttps://flask-mail.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://flask-mail.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 26 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
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
7.5/7.5Signed-Releases — 1 out of the last 1 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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_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:Flask-Mail@0.10.0 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.8/40Legible commit history — 47 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.485
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — src/flask_mail/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/flask_mail/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/flask_mail/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes20,855
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

642GitHub stars
31contributors
9commits, last 12 months
92days since last push
1releases
5bus factor
13open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 179 ⇿
0Stars
179Forks
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.

0408012016020017232012-092019-072026-05
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 22:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 5/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 26 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
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
10Signed-Releases1 out of the last 1 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1Vulnerabilities9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIflask—pyproject.toml
PyPIblinker—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 79

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIblinker1.9.0direct
PyPIflask3.1.3direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIbuild1.4.4indirect
PyPIcachetools6.2.6indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.19.1indirect
PyPIflask-mail0.10.0indirect
PyPIflit-core—indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIgha-update0.2.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.15indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize1.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.4.2indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPImyst-parser3.0.1indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.4.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.9.1indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.409indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.3.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPIsphinx7.4.7indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-log-cabinet1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItox4.30.3indirect
PyPItox-uv1.28.1indirect
PyPItox-uv-bare1.35.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIuv0.11.15indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.3.3indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.8indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:Flask-Mail@0.10.0 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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