Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 22:10 UTC

python-jsonschema / referencing

Cross-specification JSON referencing (JSON Schema, OpenAPI, and the one you just made up!)

PythonMIT★ 53 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Nov 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#jsonschema#asyncapi#hypermedia#json#openapi#api#json-schema

python-jsonschema/referencing holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (44/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Python + JSON SchemaOrganization
69 followers12 public repossince Feb 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIreferencing0.37.0-108276 days agoasyncapijsonjsonschemaopenapireferencing

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

96Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
32.5/36Commit cadence — 47/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 238 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year238
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year47

Release discipline

63Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 276 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~75.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.37.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release276
mean_days_between_releases75.1

Community & Adoption

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

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

39Weak
How it's scored
27.8/60Stars — 53 stars
11.5/25Forks — 25 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars53
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.709

Issue & PR responsiveness

63Moderate
How it's scored
29.6/42Issue resolution — 70% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance — 263/318 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs263
open_issues18
closed_issues43
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.705
closed_unmerged_prs55
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

75Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
13.3/25Owner reach — 69 followers of python-jsonschema
16.9/25Track record — 12 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers69
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginpython-jsonschema
public_repos12
account_age_days1,605
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 276 days ago
20/20Version history — 108 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesreferencing
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish276

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://referencing.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjsonschema, asyncapi, hypermedia, json, openapi, api, json-schema
has_wikino
homepagehttps://referencing.readthedocs.io/
docs_sitehttps://referencing.readthedocs.io/
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 — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 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 — 30 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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 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): Branch-Protection. 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.

60Moderate · 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)

97Exceptional
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile, noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — referencing/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_filesdocs/Makefile, noxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsreferencing/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 (referencing/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes37,854
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

53GitHub stars
8contributors
238commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
18open 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 · 2026-07-16 22:10 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-Tests15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIattrs>=22.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrpds-py>=0.7.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIattrs26.1.0direct
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.1indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpyenchant3.3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpygments-github-lexers0.0.5indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-json-schema-spec2025.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-spelling8.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxext-opengraph0.13.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurl-py2026.5.1indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
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 python-jsonschema/referencing. Read them side by side →

98fastapi/fastapiFastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for productionExceptional96rjsf-team/react-jsonschema-formA React component for building Web forms from JSON Schema.Exceptional95marshmallow-code/apispecA pluggable API specification generator. Currently supports the OpenAPI Specification (f.k.a. the Swagger specification)..Exceptional94python-jsonschema/jsonschemaAn implementation of the JSON Schema specification for PythonExceptional98api-platform/coreThe server component of API Platform: hypermedia and GraphQL APIs in minutesExceptional94stoplightio/spectralA flexible JSON/YAML linter for creating automated style guides, with baked in support for OpenAPI (v3.1, v3.0, and v2.0), Arazzo v1.0, as well as AsyncAPI v2.x.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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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