Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 00:55 UTC

sbrunner / sphinx-prompt

Sphinx directive to add unselectable prompt

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 52 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Oct 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#sphinx-extension#documentation

sbrunner/sphinx-prompt holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (51/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Stéphane BrunnerPersonal account
53 followers106 public repossince Aug 2010@camptocamp

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
PyPIsphinx-prompt1.10.2849,77317234 days agosphinxshellprompt

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

88Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 143 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year143
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year35

Release discipline

70Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 234 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~119.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tag1.10.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release234
mean_days_between_releases119.3
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

34At Risk
How it's scored
27.7/60Stars — 52 stars
6.5/25Forks — 7 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars52
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 (BSD-3-Clause)
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

99Exceptional
How it's scored
79.1/80Monthly downloads — 849,773 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessphinx-prompt
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads849,773
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.364

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
25.5/42Issue resolution — 61% of issues closed
27.8/30PR acceptance — 660/712 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs660
open_issues11
closed_issues17
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.607
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.5/25Owner reach — 53 followers of sbrunner
25/25Track record — 106 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers53
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsbrunner
public_repos106
account_age_days5,829
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 234 days ago
20/20Version history — 17 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessphinx-prompt
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish234

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.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_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssphinx-extension, documentation
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

72Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

65Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all 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
0/7.5Code-Review — no data
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 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 — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Code-Review, 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_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:sphinx-prompt@1.10.2 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.

51Moderate · 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)

76Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — sphinx_prompt/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssphinx_prompt/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (sphinx_prompt/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes6,452
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

52GitHub stars
17contributors
143commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
17releases
2bus factor
11open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 00:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all 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
n/aCode-ReviewFound no human activity in the last 30 changesets
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPISphinx—pyproject.toml
PyPIpygments—pyproject.toml
PyPIdocutils—pyproject.toml
PyPIidna—pyproject.toml
PyPIurllib3—pyproject.toml
PyPIcertifi—pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2—pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.32.4pyproject.toml
All dependencies 82

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 71 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcertifi—direct
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17direct
PyPIdocutils0.22.4direct
PyPIidna3.16direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPIpygments2.20.0direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIsphinx9.1.0direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIurllib32.7.0direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbandit1.9.4indirect
PyPIbuild1.5.0indirect
PyPIc2cciutils1.7.5indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdill0.4.1indirect
PyPIdodgy0.2.1indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIflake8-polyfill1.0.2indirect
PyPIimagesize1.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata—indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.12.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpep8-naming0.10.0indirect
PyPIpip26.1.2indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpoetry2.4.1indirect
PyPIpoetry-dynamic-versioning1.10.0indirect
PyPIpoetry-plugin-export1.10.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIprospector1.19.0indirect
PyPIprospector-profile-duplicated1.12.0indirect
PyPIprospector-profile-utils1.27.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpydocstyle6.3.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.6indirect
PyPIpylint-celery0.3indirect
PyPIpylint-django2.7.0indirect
PyPIpylint-plugin-utils0.9.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpyroma5.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequirements-detector1.5.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.20indirect
PyPIsemver3.0.4indirect
PyPIsetoptconf-tmp0.3.1indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIstevedore5.8.0indirect
PyPItag-publish1.1.1indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.0indirect
PyPItrove-classifiers2026.6.1.19indirect
PyPItypes-docutils0.22.3.20260518indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIzipp—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:sphinx-prompt@1.10.2 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

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 sbrunner/sphinx-prompt. Read them side by side →

94sphinx-gallery/sphinx-gallerySphinx extension for automatic generation of an example galleryExceptional89adamtheturtle/sphinx-substitution-extensionsExtensions for Sphinx which allow substitutionsExcellent88mgaitan/sphinxcontrib-mermaidMermaid diagrams in yours sphinx powered docsExcellent84executablebooks/sphinx-tabsTabbed views for SphinxExcellent80sphinx-toolbox/sphinx-toolboxBox of handy tools for Sphinx 🧰 📔Excellent80sloria/sphinx-issuesA Sphinx extension for linking to your project's issue trackerExcellent

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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