Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:22 UTC

pallets-eco / flask-wtf

Simple integration of Flask and WTForms, including CSRF, file upload and Recaptcha integration.

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 1,507 stars⑂ 312 forkssince Feb 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#python#flask#wtforms#html#flask-wtf#forms

pallets-eco/flask-wtf holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (47/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

96
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

96
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 83 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Pallets EcosystemOrganization
342 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-WTF1.3.0-5286 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

75Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18Commit volume — 56 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year56
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year19

Release discipline

86Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 86 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~199.3 days
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 1 out of the last 1 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv1.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release86
mean_days_between_releases199.3

Community & Adoption

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

86Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

81Excellent
How it's scored
51.5/60Stars — 1,507 stars
20.8/25Forks — 312 forks
8.3/15Watchers — 32 watchers
Inputs used
forks312
stars1,507
watchers32
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

86Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

77Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 92 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 39 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled92
top_contributor_share0.235

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent
How it's scored
39/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
23.4/30PR acceptance — 274/351 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs274
open_issues24
closed_issues309
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.928
closed_unmerged_prs77
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

88Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
18.2/25Owner reach — 342 followers of pallets-eco
21.9/25Track record — 38 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers342
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginpallets-eco
public_repos38
account_age_days1,879
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 86 days ago
20/20Version history — 52 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesFlask-WTF
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish86

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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-wtf.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, flask, wtforms, html, flask-wtf, forms
has_wikino
homepagehttps://flask-wtf.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://flask-wtf.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

72Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

72Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 39 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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.

47Weak · 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)

81Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
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
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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 — 0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes11,711
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

1,507GitHub stars
92contributors
56commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
3bus factor
24open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.2 / 10
7.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 13:21 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
10CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 39 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIFlask—pyproject.toml
PyPIWTForms—pyproject.toml
PyPIitsdangerous—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIflask3.1.3direct
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0direct
PyPIwtforms3.2.1direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIcachetools6.2.2indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.11.12indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIchardet5.2.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIdnspython2.8.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIemail-validator2.3.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIflask-babel4.0.0indirect
PyPIflask-reuploaded1.6.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.15indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpallets-sphinx-themes2.3.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.5.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.10.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals-py3.1.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx8.2.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-issues5.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-page1.1.0indirect
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
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItox4.32.0indirect
PyPItox-uv1.29.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuv0.11.15indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.36.1indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.6indirect
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 pallets-eco/flask-wtf. Read them side by side →

99apache/supersetApache Superset is a Data Visualization and Data Exploration PlatformExceptional97elastic/apm-agent-pythonExceptional100numpy/numpyThe fundamental package for scientific computing with Python.Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100scikit-learn/scikit-learnscikit-learn: machine learning in PythonExceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK 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.