Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 09:07 UTC

sgerrand / quart-assets

Asset pipeline for the Quart framework

PythonBSD-2-Clause★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

sgerrand/quart-assets holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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).

Ownership

Sasha GerrandPersonal account
232 followers406 public repossince Feb 2010

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
PyPIquart-assets0.1.94,725120 days agoquartwebassetsassets

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
29.1/36Commit cadence — 42/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 145 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year145
human_commit_share0.34
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year42
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~54.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv0.1.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases54.7
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
49/80Monthly downloads — 4,725 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesquart-assets
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,725
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?

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 34 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled34
top_contributor_share0.476
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
26.8/30PR acceptance — 143/160 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs143
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs17
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17/25Owner reach — 232 followers of sgerrand
25/25Track record — 406 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers232
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsgerrand
public_repos406
account_age_days6,093
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 12 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesquart-assets
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.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_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://quart-assets.readthedocs.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython-package, python3, quart-extension
has_wikino
homepagehttps://quart-assets.readthedocs.io
docs_sitehttps://quart-assets.readthedocs.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

82Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-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 — Found 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 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 — 24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.7
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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages83
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 83 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

73Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 34 of 34 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,301
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 60 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.6
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes15,095
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2GitHub stars
34contributors
145commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
12releases
2bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:quart-assets@0.1.9; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.7 / 10
7.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 09:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIquart>=0.20.0,<0.21.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyscss—pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml—pyproject.toml
PyPIwebassets>=2.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 83

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 79 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpyscss1.4.0direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIquart0.20.0direct
PyPIwebassets3.0.0direct
PyPIaiofiles25.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs6.2indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIcachetools7.0.5indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.3.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.25.2indirect
PyPIflask3.1.3indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.0.2indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIh24.4.1indirect
PyPIhjson3.1.0indirect
PyPIhpack4.2.0indirect
PyPIhypercorn0.18.0indirect
PyPIhyperframe6.1.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.2indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-gen-files0.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-literate-nav0.6.3indirect
PyPImkdocs-macros-plugin1.5.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.3indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.1indirect
PyPIpriority2.0.0indirect
PyPIproperdocs1.6.7indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.10.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIquart-assets0.1.8indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.1indirect
PyPIruff0.15.22indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsuper-collections0.6.2indirect
PyPItaskgroup0.2.2indirect
PyPItermcolor3.3.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItox4.58.0indirect
PyPItox-uv1.36.0indirect
PyPItox-uv-bare1.36.0indirect
PyPIty0.0.62indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIuv0.13.4indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.13indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.9indirect
PyPIwsproto1.3.2indirect
PyPIzope-dottedname7.1indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 83 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
certifi2026.2.25indirecthigh22026.10.19

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.