Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 19:14 UTC

samuelcolvin / watchfiles

Simple, modern and fast file watching and code reload for Python, written in Rust

Python · RustMIT★ 2,520 stars⑂ 141 forkssince Oct 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolDesktop applicationhow this is determined
#python#asyncio#filesystem#notify#inotify#inotifywatch#uvicorn#rust

samuelcolvin/watchfiles holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Security (61/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Samuel ColvinPersonal account
6,534 followers309 public repossince Apr 2013@pydantic

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 publish
PyPIwatchfiles1.2.0-2978 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

53Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 7 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18Commit volume — 10 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year10
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 43 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 78 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~69.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count43
latest_release_tagv1.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release78
mean_days_between_releases69.7
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?

66Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

80Excellent
How it's scored
55.2/60Stars — 2,520 stars
17.9/25Forks — 141 forks
6.4/15Watchers — 15 watchers
Inputs used
forks141
stars2,520
watchers15
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_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 67% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 52 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled52
top_contributor_share0.67

Issue & PR responsiveness

69Good
How it's scored
31.6/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
23.9/30PR acceptance — 172/216 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs172
open_issues40
closed_issues121
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.752
closed_unmerged_prs44
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.

Ownership & stewardship

75Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach — 6,534 followers of samuelcolvin
25/25Track record — 309 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers6,534
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsamuelcolvin
public_repos309
account_age_days4,872
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 78 days ago
20/20Version history — 29 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswatchfiles
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish78

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent
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
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
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://watchfiles.helpmanual.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, asyncio, filesystem, notify, inotify, inotifywatch, uvicorn, rust
has_wikino
homepagehttps://watchfiles.helpmanual.io
docs_sitehttps://watchfiles.helpmanual.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 18 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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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_packages2
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:watchfiles@1.2.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 74 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.841
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

82Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — watchfiles/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 12 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configswatchfiles/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.12

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (watchfiles/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/18 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes15,244
source_files_sampled18
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,520GitHub stars
52contributors
10commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
43releases
1bus factor
40open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'watchfiles_rust_notify' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 141 ⇿
0Stars
141Forks
40Releases

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.

025507510012515013842018-012022-042026-07
Major 1Minor 12Patch 12

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 19:14 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
3CI-Tests10 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 9/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocrossbeam-channel0.5.15Cargo.toml
crates.ionotify8.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopyo30.29.0Cargo.toml
PyPIanyio>=3.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 111

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 107 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iocrossbeam-channel0.5.15direct
crates.ionotify8.0.0direct
crates.iopyo30.29.0direct
PyPIanyio4.13.0direct
crates.iobitflags1.3.2indirect
crates.iobitflags2.7.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.0indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.19indirect
crates.iofiletime0.2.24indirect
crates.iofsevent-sys4.1.0indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioinotify0.11.0indirect
crates.ioinotify-sys0.1.5indirect
crates.iokqueue1.0.8indirect
crates.iokqueue-sys1.0.4indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.169indirect
crates.iolibredox0.1.3indirect
crates.iolog0.4.22indirect
crates.iomio1.0.3indirect
crates.ionotify-types2.0.0indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.3indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.6.0indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.81indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.29.0indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.29.0indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.45indirect
crates.ioredox_syscall0.5.3indirect
crates.iosame-file1.0.6indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.60indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.5indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.12indirect
crates.iowalkdir2.5.0indirect
crates.iowasi0.11.0+wasi-snapshot-preview1indirect
crates.iowinapi-util0.1.9indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.52.0indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.59.0indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.52.6indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs7.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.4.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.0indirect
PyPIcyclic1.0.0indirect
PyPIdirty-equals0.11indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.0.2indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.2indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImaturin1.13.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImdx-include1.4.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.6indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings—indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.4indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.3indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIoutcome1.3.0.post0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.21.3indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytest-pretty1.3.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrcslice1.1.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.13indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItrio0.33.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:watchfiles@1.2.0 pulls in 2 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with samuelcolvin/watchfiles. Read them side by side →

98fastapi/fastapiFastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for productionExceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional99Qiskit/qiskitQiskit is an open-source SDK for working with quantum computers at the level of extended quantum circuits, operators, and primitives.Exceptional99apache/datafusionApache DataFusion SQL Query EngineExceptional99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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