Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 14:54 UTC

tuunit / mkdocs-drawio

MkDocs Plugin for embedding Drawio files

PythonMIT★ 46 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Jan 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

tuunit/mkdocs-drawio holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (47/100). It was last updated 50 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jan LarwigPersonal account
73 followers86 public repossince Apr 2016@stackitcloud

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
PyPImkdocs-drawio1.16.3124,0432850 days agomkdocspluginmarkdowndrawio

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 50 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume — 16 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push50
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 26 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 50 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~31.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv1.16.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release50
mean_days_between_releases31.5
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
26.8/60Stars — 46 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars46
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.9/80Monthly downloads — 124,043 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmkdocs-drawio
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads124,043
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 61% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.614
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance — 30/34 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs30
open_issues4
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs4
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.4/25Owner reach — 73 followers of tuunit
25/25Track record — 86 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers73
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintuunit
public_repos86
account_age_days3,801
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 50 days ago
20/20Version history — 28 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmkdocs-drawio
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish50

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://tuunit.github.io/mkdocs-drawio/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://tuunit.github.io/mkdocs-drawio/
docs_sitehttps://tuunit.github.io/mkdocs-drawio/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.3
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
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_packages26
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:mkdocs-drawio@1.16.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 26 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.7/40Legible commit history — 50 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.5
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes10,879
source_files_sampled3
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 — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

46GitHub stars
14contributors
16commits, last 12 months
50days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
4open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
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.

03581013151412024-072025-052026-03
Major 0Minor 7Patch 8

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 14:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
4CI-Tests11 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIrequests>=2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2>=3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4>=4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml>=4.8pyproject.toml
PyPImkdocs>=1.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpypng>=0.20220715.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 75

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 67 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPIlxml6.1.1direct
PyPImkdocs1.6.1direct
PyPIpypng0.20220715.0direct
PyPIrequests2.32.4direct
PyPIrequests2.32.5direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs5.7.post1indirect
PyPIbackrefs6.2indirect
PyPIbackrefs7.0indirect
PyPIblack24.8.0indirect
PyPIblack25.11.0indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.5.0indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.2indirect
PyPImarkdown3.7indirect
PyPImarkdown3.9indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-drawio1.16.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.6indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.7indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-print-site-plugin2.8indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.15indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.21.3indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpytz2026.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag0.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIruff0.16.0indirect
PyPIruff0.9.10indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.7indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog4.0.2indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.20.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mkdocs-drawio@1.16.3 pulls in 26 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.