Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 05:35 UTC

zostera / django-bootstrap4

Bootstrap 4 integration with Django.

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 1,025 stars⑂ 256 forkssince Apr 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

zostera/django-bootstrap4 holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (94/100) and lowest on Vitality (60/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Zostera B.V.Organization

38 followers27 public repossince Sep 2011

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	django-bootstrap4	26.1	-	37	221 days ago	django bootstrap bootstrap4

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 3 days ago
14.5/36	Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18	Commit volume — 50 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	50
human_commit_share	0.47
days_since_last_push	3
active_weeks_last_year	21

Release discipline

36Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 2 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,910 days ago
5.4/27	Release cadence — a release every ~528.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	2
latest_release_tag	v3.0.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,910
mean_days_between_releases	528.1

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

Popularity & adoption

77Good

How it's scored

48.8/60	Stars — 1,025 stars
20.1/25	Forks — 256 forks
8.5/15	Watchers — 35 watchers

Inputs used

forks	256
stars	1,025
watchers	35
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	coveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	99
top_contributor_share	0.733

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good

How it's scored

37.6/42	Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
21.2/30	PR acceptance — 503/711 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	503
open_issues	17
closed_issues	145
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	9
prs_decided_30d	9
issue_closed_ratio	0.895
closed_unmerged_prs	208
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

80Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
11.4/25	Owner reach — 38 followers of zostera
22.5/25	Track record — 27 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	38
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	zostera
public_repos	27
account_age_days	5,430

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 221 days ago
20/20	Version history — 37 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	django-bootstrap4
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	221

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://django-bootstrap4.readthedocs.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	django, bootstrap4, python
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://django-bootstrap4.readthedocs.io/
docs_site	https://django-bootstrap4.readthedocs.io/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	6
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:django-bootstrap4@26.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

71Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 42 of 47 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.894
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	5,113

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

77Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
8/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 53 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	justfile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.04
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.53

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/40 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	23,533
source_files_sampled	40
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — example

Inputs used

example_dirs	example
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

1,025GitHub stars

99contributors

50commits, last 12 months

3days since last push

2releases

1bus factor

17open 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 ★ / 256 ⇿

0Stars

256Forks

2Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 1Patch 1

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10

5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 05:35 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 35 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	18 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	Django	`>=5.2,<7.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`>=4.10.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 43

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.14.3`	direct
PyPI	django	`5.2.16`	direct
PyPI	accessible-pygments	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	asgiref	`3.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.11.12`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	django-bootstrap4	`26.1`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2025.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mdit-py-plugins	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	myst-parser	`4.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.33.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals-py	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-basic-ng	`1.0.0b2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlparse	`0.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2025.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:django-bootstrap4@26.1 pulls in 6 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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records