MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414586197 · doi:10.1002/spe.70024

Project Templating and Onboarding With Cookiecutter: Foundations, Uses, and Guidelines

2025· article· en· W4414586197 on OpenAlexafffund
Juergen Dingel, Alex Sun, Hesham ElAbd, Nathanael Yao, Andrew Boulos, Ali Tizghadam

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Practice and Experience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)Queen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsOnboardingContext (archaeology)Python (programming language)Web applicationSoftwareQuality (philosophy)Metadata

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives Cookiecutter is a popular, mature open‐source Python library for automating the creation of customized projects from templates. This kind of scaffolding is useful for enabling reuse, encapsulating expertise, achieve uniformity, and facilitating project creation for a range of languages and domains, including microservices, web applications, and data science. Despite their success, there is a lack of descriptions of general‐purpose project templating tools such as Cookiecutter in the literature. The objective of the paper is to provide a description of Cookiecutter that is useful for researchers and practitioners. Methods Our work is informed by our own use of Cookiecutter in the context of an industrial project. We describe Cookiecutter with the help of four different research questions. The first two relate to how Cookiecutter works (RQ1) and how it is used (RQ2). The latter two are concerned with providing guidance to users of Cookiecutter (RQ3) and identifying challenges that they may face (RQ4). Result Our answer to question RQ1 provides a succinct, high‐level description of the structure of Cookiecutter templates and Cookiecutter's execution semantics. For question RQ2, we provide an analysis of the 100 most popular Cookiecutter templates on GitHub and descriptions of three applications of Cookiecutter in different domains. For question RQ3, we identify quality attributes for Cookiecutter projects together with best practice recommendations. For question RQ4, our discussion of challenges is structured around different lifecycle activities related to the overall management of Cookiecutter templates. The potential for research results in related areas such as software product lines, feature and variability modeling, and model‐driven engineering to help address these challenges is highlighted. Conclusion The paper provides a comprehensive discussion of Cookiecutter, a successful general‐purpose project templating tool with demonstrated industrial use. The discussion covers fundamental and practical aspects of Cookiecutter and thus targets practitioners as well as researchers interested in general‐purpose templating and Cookiecutter in particular.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Practice and ExperienceSame topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207