Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 01:48 UTC

pallets / quart

An async Python micro framework for building web applications.

PythonMIT★ 3,648 stars⑂ 204 forkssince Nov 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork serviceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

pallets/quart holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Vitality (34/100). It was last updated 322 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PalletsOrganization
2,366 followers17 public repossince Jan 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIQuart0.20.0-65574 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

34At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 322 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume6 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push322
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases4 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 570 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~21 days
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases1 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tag0.20.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release570
mean_days_between_releases21

Community & Adoption

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

89Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
57.8/60Stars3,648 stars
19.2/25Forks204 forks
8.7/15Watchers38 watchers
Inputs used
forks204
stars3,648
watchers38
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth92 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled92
top_contributor_share0.828
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution83% of issues closed
18.2/30PR acceptance68/112 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs68
open_issues49
closed_issues235
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.827
closed_unmerged_prs44
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
24.3/25Owner reach2,366 followers of pallets
21.1/25Track record17 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,366
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginpallets
public_repos17
account_age_days3,837
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 574 days ago
20/20Version history65 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesQuart
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish574

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
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 sitehttps://quart.palletsprojects.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsasyncio, python, asgi, flask, quart, jinja, web-framework
has_wikino
homepagehttps://quart.palletsprojects.com
docs_sitehttps://quart.palletsprojects.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
3.8/7.5Signed-Releases1 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.9
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages15
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:Quart@0.20.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 15 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 instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingsrc/quart/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/quart/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.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (src/quart/py.typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes1/72 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes66,963
source_files_sampled72
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

3,648GitHub stars
92contributors
6commits, last 12 months
322days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
49open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 01:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 6/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 20 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 1 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
5Signed-Releases1 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIaiofilespyproject.toml
PyPIblinker>=1.6pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.0pyproject.toml
PyPIflask>=3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhypercorn>=0.11.2pyproject.toml
PyPIimportlib-metadatapyproject.toml
PyPIitsdangerouspyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2pyproject.toml
PyPImarkupsafepyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensionspyproject.toml
PyPIwerkzeug>=3.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiofilesdirect
PyPIblinkerdirect
PyPIclickdirect
PyPIflaskdirect
PyPIhypercorndirect
PyPIimportlib-metadatadirect
PyPIitsdangerousdirect
PyPIjinja2direct
PyPImarkupsafedirect
PyPItyping-extensionsdirect
PyPIwerkzeugdirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-asyncioindirect
PyPIpythonindirect
PyPIquartindirect
PyPIquart-schemaindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:Quart@0.20.0 pulls in 15 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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.