Thriving Thriving Python PY
↑ 48
beets-web-manager Iranman/beets-web-manager

Self-hosted Beets music library manager with import review, playlist repair, cleanup jobs, and metadata verification.

HEALTH 90 / Healthy
// solo builder// hidden gem// release machine// under pressure
07-2026 · today · Iranman
★12 Share View on GitHub ↗

// readme

Beets Web Manager

Beets Web Manager is a self-hosted web application for managing a Beets music library, import review, playlist repair, acquisition queues, cleanup jobs, metadata verification, and media-server synchronization from one operator-focused interface.

The app is designed for local or self-hosted deployments where the music library, download staging folders, Beets database, Plex, downloader services, MusicBrainz, AcoustID, and optional AI providers are controlled by the administrator.

This project exists because the Beets web plugin didn’t cover enough on its own: a full UI, import review, playlist repair, acquisition queues, cleanup jobs, and metadata verification on top of Beets. Issues and improvement suggestions are welcome.

Features

  • Flask web manager that talks to a standard stock lscr.io/linuxserver/beets container over HTTP via its web plugin (reads) and a bundled webmanager integration plugin (authenticated mutations) — Beets Web Manager has no Beets runtime of its own.
  • React and Next.js static frontend served by the backend.
  • Import review queue with evidence-driven accept, reject, and cleanup actions.
  • Playlist ingestion from files, URLs,…
↑ The Undervalued Score +

How much a project earns versus how much attention it actually gets. Above 50 means the work is outrunning its audience. Recomputed nightly from commit velocity, contributor effort, issue resolution, fork utility, release cadence, and project maturity — divided by a logarithmic reach factor.

score  = signal / reach

signal = 0.25·commit_velocity   // commits in last 90 days (cap 30)
       + 0.20·contributor_work  // unique authors × velocity (cap 100)
       + 0.20·issue_resolution  // closed ÷ total issues
       + 0.20·fork_ratio        // forks ÷ stars (proxy for real usage)
       + 0.10·release_cadence   // releases in 90 days (cap 3)
       + age_bonus              // +0 to +0.30 after 6 months
       + homepage_bonus         // +0.05 if homepage is set

reach  = log₁₀(stars + watchers + 10)█
♥ The Health Score +

Is the project alive and maintained right now? A 0–100 pulse recomputed nightly from commit recency, rhythm, how fast issues close, and how quickly PRs get merged.

health = 0.35·recency       // days since last commit (90d decay)
       + 0.25·cadence       // commit rhythm consistency
       + 0.20·issue_health  // closed ÷ total issues
       + 0.20·pr_health     // merged ÷ total PRs█
◷ Health bands +

The colour and label on every card come straight from the health score.

Healthy   80 – 100   active, responsive, regular releases
Stable    60 – 79    maintained, steady, no alarms
Quiet     40 – 59    slowing down — watch this one
At Risk    0 – 39    going dark · candidate for rescue█
// Tags — what each label means +

Tags are independent behavioral signals computed nightly. A project can hold multiple at once. They drive the home page sections.

solo_builder      one person holds > 80% of commits (last 180d)
needs_contributors has open "help wanted" or "good first issue" labels
hidden_gem        < 100 stars · active in last 3 months · documented
legacy_hero       repo > 5 years old · committed this year
fork_magnet       forks/stars > 0.5 · used as template or dependency
release_machine   5+ releases in the last 90 days
under_pressure    > 10 open issues · ≤ 2 contributors · health ≥ 60
community_watch   watchers > stars · devs tracking before the public
community_hub     GitHub Discussions enabled · > 20 discussions
funded            maintainer has active funding channel█
★ Why rank against stars at all? +

Stars are an outcome, not effort. A project with 8 stars and daily commits is doing more interesting work than one coasting on 8k. We measure the building, then divide by the attention already received — so the genuinely undervalued rise to the top.

// stars   = lagging indicator
// commits = leading indicator
// we rank by the leading one█