Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 23:32 UTC

scrapy / parsel

Parsel lets you extract data from XML/HTML documents using XPath or CSS selectors

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 1,354 stars⑂ 172 forkssince Apr 2015View on GitHub ↗

scrapy/parsel holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Security (47/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Scrapy projectOrganization
844 followers33 public repossince Apr 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIparsel1.11.04,745,80725231 days agoparsel

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
16/18Commit volume — 60 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year60
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 231 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~353.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv1.11.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release231
mean_days_between_releases353.2
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?

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50.8/60Stars — 1,354 stars
18.6/25Forks — 172 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 34 watchers
Inputs used
forks172
stars1,354
watchers34
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 4,745,807 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesparsel
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,745,807
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?

85Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 15% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 54 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 30 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled54
top_contributor_share0.147
How it's scored
38.3/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
24.1/30PR acceptance — 189/235 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs189
open_issues11
closed_issues115
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d13
issue_closed_ratio0.913
closed_unmerged_prs46
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
21/25Owner reach — 844 followers of scrapy
23.2/25Track record — 33 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers844
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginscrapy
public_repos33
account_age_days5,633
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 231 days ago
20/20Version history — 25 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesparsel
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish231

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://parsel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, lxml, xpath, xml, selectors, css, scraping, hacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://parsel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 30 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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
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
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_aggregate7.2
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier36
security_posture_before_jurisdiction72
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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_packages5
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:parsel@1.11.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 5 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.9/40Legible commit history — 49 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.505
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — parsel/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsparsel/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (parsel/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes56,329
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,354GitHub stars
54contributors
60commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
19releases
4bus factor
11open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'parsel' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for parsel carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 172 ⇿
0Stars
172Forks
15Releases

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.

0408012016020017052015-082021-022026-09
Major 1Minor 8Patch 6

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.2 / 10
7.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 23:32 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 30 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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcssselect>=1.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIjmespath>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml>=5.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIw3lib>=1.19.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 8

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcssselect—direct
PyPIjmespath—direct
PyPIlxml—direct
PyPIw3lib—direct
PyPIhatchling—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-page—indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:parsel@1.11.0 pulls in 5 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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