Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-01 03:28 UTC

wagtail / draftjs_exporter

Convert Draft.js ContentState to HTML

PythonMIT★ 84 stars⑂ 22 forkssince Jun 2016View on GitHub ↗

wagtail/draftjs_exporter holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (68/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts 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

WagtailOrganization
835 followers66 public repossince Nov 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIdraftjs_exporter6.0.0984,8773916 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 109 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year109
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 29 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 16 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~265.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tagv6.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases265.2
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?

76Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.1/60Stars — 84 stars
11/25Forks — 22 forks
6.2/15Watchers — 14 watchers
Inputs used
forks22
stars84
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
79.9/80Monthly downloads — 984,877 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdraftjs_exporter
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads984,877
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
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.98
How it's scored
41.2/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
28.6/30PR acceptance — 100/105 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs100
open_issues1
closed_issues51
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.981
closed_unmerged_prs5
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
21/25Owner reach — 835 followers of wagtail
25/25Track record — 66 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers835
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginwagtail
public_repos66
account_age_days3,537

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 16 days ago
20/20Version history — 39 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdraftjs_exporter
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.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_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://wagtail.github.io/draftjs_exporter/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdraft-js, python, exporter, draftjs-exporter, draftail, rich-text
has_wikino
homepagehttps://wagtail.github.io/draftjs_exporter/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

76Good · 16% of overall
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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/29 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
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, 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
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
advisories8
affected_packages3
assessed_packages79
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2, low 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 79 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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.8/40Legible commit history — 3 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.033
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,689
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — draftjs_exporter/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesjustfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsdraftjs_exporter/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (draftjs_exporter/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/69 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes52,577
source_files_sampled69
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

84GitHub stars
11contributors
109commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
29releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, 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 ★ / 22 ⇿
0Stars
22Forks
27Releases

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.

048121620242222016-072021-032025-11
Major 5Minor 8Patch 14

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-01 03:28 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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 79

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 79 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmprettier3.9.4indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs7.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.8indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIcssselect1.4.0indirect
PyPIdraftjs-exporter6.0.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.1.0indirect
PyPIhtml5lib1.1indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.156.1indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPIlinkify-it-py2.1.0indirect
PyPIlxml6.0.2indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.2indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdownify1.2.3indirect
PyPImarkov-draftjs2.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdformat0.7.22indirect
PyPImdformat-tables1.0.0indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.5.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImemray1.19.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-llmstxt0.5.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.6indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-simple-hooks0.1.5indirect
PyPImkdocstrings1.0.4indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python2.0.5indirect
PyPImypy2.2.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.4indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-memray1.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrich14.3.3indirect
PyPIruff0.15.7indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.3indirect
PyPItextual8.1.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPIty0.0.61indirect
PyPItypes-beautifulsoup44.12.0.20250516indirect
PyPItypes-html5lib1.1.11.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-lxml2026.2.16indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-webencodings0.5.0.20260408indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIuc-micro-py2.0.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
PyPIwebencodings0.5.1indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 79 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
lxml6.0.2indirecthigh26.1.0
soupsieve2.8.3indirecthigh42.8.4
pygments2.19.2indirectlow22.20.0

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.