Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 04:04 UTC

rsinger86 / django-lifecycle

Declarative model lifecycle hooks, an alternative to Signals.

PythonMIT★ 1,405 stars⑂ 95 forkssince Mar 2018View on GitHub ↗

rsinger86/django-lifecycle holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated 59 days ago. 2 contributors account 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

Robert SingerPersonal account
117 followers15 public repossince Jun 2014

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIdjango-lifecycle1.3.0243,4904559 days agodjangomodellifecyclehookscallbacks

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 59 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence9/52 weeks with commits
13.9/18Commit volume34 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year34
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push59
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases33 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 59 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~105.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count33
latest_release_tag1.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release59
mean_days_between_releases105.4
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
51.1/60Stars1,405 stars
16.4/25Forks95 forks
6.4/15Watchers15 watchers
Inputs used
forks95
stars1,405
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
71.8/80Monthly downloads243,490 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdjango-lifecycle
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads243,490
unverified_packages_excluded
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?

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth36 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled36
top_contributor_share0.472
How it's scored
35.1/42Issue resolution84% of issues closed
22.9/30PR acceptance78/102 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs78
open_issues13
closed_issues66
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.835
closed_unmerged_prs24
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
14.9/25Owner reach117 followers of rsinger86
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers117
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginrsinger86
public_repos15
account_age_days4,447
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 59 days ago
20/20Version history45 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdjango-lifecycle
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish59

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configtox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://rsinger86.github.io/django-lifecycle/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdjango-models, lifecycle-hooks, django, transition-conditions
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://rsinger86.github.io/django-lifecycle/
docs_sitehttps://rsinger86.github.io/django-lifecycle/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.2/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 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
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities62 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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_packages3
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:django-lifecycle@1.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history86 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.86
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configtox.ini
11/11Static type checkingdjango_lifecycle/py.typed, django_lifecycle_checks/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdjango_lifecycle/py.typed, django_lifecycle_checks/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (django_lifecycle/py.typed, django_lifecycle_checks/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/42 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes20,056
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,405GitHub stars
36contributors
34commits, last 12 months
59days since last push
33releases
2bus factor
13open 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 ★ / 95 ⇿
0Stars
95Forks
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.

0204060801009532018-042022-032026-02
Major 1Minor 8Patch 22

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 04:04 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1CI-Tests1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 5/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
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
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities62 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 31 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIasgirefindirect
PyPIclick7.0indirect
PyPIdjangoindirect
PyPIdjango5.2indirect
PyPIdjango-capture-on-commit-callbacksindirect
PyPIdjango-capture-on-commit-callbacks1.10.0indirect
PyPIdjangorestframework3.11.2indirect
PyPIghp-import2.0.2indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata4.8.1indirect
PyPIjinja22.11.3indirect
PyPIlivereload2.6.1indirect
PyPImarkdown3.2.1indirect
PyPImarkupsafe1.1.1indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.2.3indirect
PyPImkdocs-material4.6.3indirect
PyPIpackaging21.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.7.4indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions6.3indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.8.2indirect
PyPIpytz2023.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag0.1indirect
PyPIsix1.14.0indirect
PyPIsqlparseindirect
PyPItornado6.0.3indirect
PyPIurlmanindirect
PyPIurlman1.2.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog2.1.6indirect
PyPIzipp3.6.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:django-lifecycle@1.3.0 pulls in 3 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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