Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 00:27 UTC

psf / cachecontrol

The httplib2 caching algorithms packaged up for use with requests.

PythonCustom license★ 501 stars⑂ 144 forkssince Jun 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

psf/cachecontrol holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (75/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (61/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Python Software FoundationOrganization
2,380 followers42 public repossince May 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPICacheControl0.14.4-52244 days agorequestshttpcachingweb

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

77Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18Commit volume — 44 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year44
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year23

Release discipline

70Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 244 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~99.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv0.14.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release244
mean_days_between_releases99.7
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?

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

68Good
How it's scored
43.8/60Stars — 501 stars
18/25Forks — 144 forks
6.7/15Watchers — 17 watchers
Inputs used
forks144
stars501
watchers17
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

79Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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?

75Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 77 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 60 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled77
top_contributor_share0.526

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
35.2/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
24.3/30PR acceptance — 224/276 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs224
open_issues26
closed_issues135
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.839
closed_unmerged_prs52
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

98Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
24.3/25Owner reach — 2,380 followers of psf
23.9/25Track record — 42 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,380
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginpsf
public_repos42
account_age_days2,620
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 244 days ago
20/20Version history — 52 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesCacheControl
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish244

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

74Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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 2/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 60 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

61Moderate · 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)

84Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — cachecontrol/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configscachecontrol/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 (cachecontrol/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/31 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes19,022
source_files_sampled31
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

501GitHub stars
77contributors
44commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
10releases
1bus factor
26open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 00:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 2/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 60 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIrequests>= 2.16.0pyproject.toml
PyPImsgpack>= 0.5.2, < 2.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 72

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 70 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPImsgpack1.1.2direct
PyPIrequests2.33.0direct
PyPI-—indirect
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIautocommand2.2.2indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.2indirect
PyPIcachecontrol0.14.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.10.5indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIcheroot11.1.2indirect
PyPIcherrypy18.10.0indirect
PyPIcodespell2.4.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.11.0indirect
PyPIcryptography48.0.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIfuro2025.9.25indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-collections5.2.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.0.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-text4.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.8.0indirect
PyPImypy1.18.2indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIportend3.2.1indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIredis7.0.1indirect
PyPIroman-numerals-py3.1.0indirect
PyPIruff0.14.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools80.9.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx8.2.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPItempora5.8.1indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItypes-cffi1.17.0.20250915indirect
PyPItypes-pyopenssl24.1.0.20240722indirect
PyPItypes-redis4.6.0.20241004indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.32.4.20250913indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools80.9.0.20250822indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIzc-lockfile4.0indirect
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 psf/cachecontrol. Read them side by side →

98psf/requestsA simple, yet elegant, HTTP library.Exceptional96php-curl-class/php-curl-classPHP Curl Class makes it easy to send HTTP requests and integrate with web APIsExceptional94falconry/falconThe no-magic web API and microservices framework for Python developers, with a focus on reliability and performance at scale.Exceptional94emmett-framework/granianA Rust HTTP server for Python applicationsExceptional90jawah/niquestsDrop-in replacement for Requests. Automatic HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, and HTTP/3. WebSocket, and SSE included.Excellent89apify/impitimpit | rust library for browser impersonationExcellent

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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