Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-08 19:38 UTC

python / python-docs-theme

Sphinx theme for Python documentation

CSS · HTML · JavaScriptCustom license★ 89 stars⑂ 76 forkssince Jun 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

python/python-docs-theme holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PythonOrganization
31,901 followers92 public repossince Mar 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIpython-docs-theme2026.7193,9233611 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 6 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence — 28/52 weeks with commits
16/18Commit volume — 59 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year59
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 32 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~47.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tag2026.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases47.4
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.5/60Stars — 89 stars
15.6/25Forks — 76 forks
8.9/15Watchers — 41 watchers
Inputs used
forks76
stars89
watchers41
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
70.5/80Monthly downloads — 193,923 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespython-docs-theme
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads193,923
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?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 44 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 74 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled44
top_contributor_share0.539
How it's scored
36.8/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance — 196/219 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 18/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs196
open_issues12
closed_issues85
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.876
closed_unmerged_prs23
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
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 31,901 followers of python
25/25Track record — 92 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers31,901
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginpython
public_repos92
account_age_days5,263

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 11 days ago
20/20Version history — 36 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespython-docs-theme
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish11

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

85Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

81Excellent
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 — 29 out of 29 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
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 18/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 74 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 — 9 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate8.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, signed_releases. 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_packages22
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:python-docs-theme@2026.7 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 22 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 76 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.864
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — CSS without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageCSS
largest_source_bytes4,265
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

89GitHub stars
44contributors
59commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
12open 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 ★ / 76 ⇿
0Stars
76Forks
31Releases

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.

0204060807642017-102022-032026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 5

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.1 / 10
8.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 19:37 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-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 18/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 74 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained9 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIsphinx>=7.3pyproject.toml
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIsphinxdirect
PyPIbabelindirect
PyPIhatchlingindirect
PyPIjinja2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:python-docs-theme@2026.7 pulls in 22 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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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