Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:54 UTC

sphinx-contrib / httpdomain

Documenting RESTful HTTP APIs

Python · MakefileCustom license★ 61 stars⑂ 44 forkssince Sep 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#sphinx-extension#sphinxcontrib#sphinx-domain

sphinx-contrib/httpdomain holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Security (41/100). It was last updated 95 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

sphinx-contribOrganization
111 followers125 public repossince Sep 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIsphinxcontrib-httpdomain2.0.0-25163 days agosphinxextensiondocumentationcontribhttpapidomain

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

46Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

28At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 95 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
14.7/18Commit volume — 42 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year42
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push95
active_weeks_last_year5

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 6 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 163 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~235.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tag2.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release163
mean_days_between_releases235.5
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

46Weak
How it's scored
28.8/60Stars — 61 stars
13.6/25Forks — 44 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks44
stars61
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

64Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

74Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 55 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled55
top_contributor_share0.376

Issue & PR responsiveness

70Good
How it's scored
29.7/42Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
24.9/30PR acceptance — 34/41 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs34
open_issues15
closed_issues36
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.706
closed_unmerged_prs7
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. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

87Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
14.7/25Owner reach — 111 followers of sphinx-contrib
25/25Track record — 125 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers111
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginsphinx-contrib
public_repos125
account_age_days3,229
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 163 days ago
20/20Version history — 25 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessphinxcontrib-httpdomain
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish163

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/sphinxcontrib-httpdomain/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssphinx-extension, sphinxcontrib, sphinx-domain
has_wikino
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/sphinxcontrib-httpdomain/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/sphinxcontrib-httpdomain/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

41Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 28 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

44Weak · 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)

73Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, test/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, test/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/17 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes29,043
source_files_sampled17
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

61GitHub stars
55contributors
42commits, last 12 months
95days since last push
6releases
3bus factor
15open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 13:54 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
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 7/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIsphinx>=6.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 47

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 44 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIsphinx8.1.3direct
PyPIsphinx9.0.4direct
PyPIsphinx9.1.0direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.12.1indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIbottle0.13.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIflask3.1.2indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild2024.10.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild2025.8.25indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIstarlette0.52.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItornado6.5.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.40.0indirect
PyPIwatchfiles1.1.1indirect
PyPIwebsockets16.0indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.5indirect
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 sphinx-contrib/httpdomain. Read them side by side →

94sphinx-gallery/sphinx-gallerySphinx extension for automatic generation of an example galleryExceptional94graphile/crystal🔮 Graphile's Crystal Monorepo; home to Grafast, PostGraphile, pg-introspection, pg-sql2 and much more!Exceptional99scalar/scalarScalar is an open-source API platform:　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　🌐 Modern REST API Client　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　📖 Beautiful API References　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　✨ 1st-Class OpenAPI/Swagger SupportExceptional96php-curl-class/php-curl-classPHP Curl Class makes it easy to send HTTP requests and integrate with web APIsExceptional95marshmallow-code/apispecA pluggable API specification generator. Currently supports the OpenAPI Specification (f.k.a. the Swagger specification)..Exceptional94falconry/falconThe no-magic web API and microservices framework for Python developers, with a focus on reliability and performance at scale.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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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