Public recordExceptional
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 02:53 UTC
CrowdStrike / falcon-mcp
Connect AI agents to CrowdStrike Falcon for automated security analysis and threat hunting
CrowdStrike/falcon-mcp holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.
94
overall / 100Software 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.
94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
CrowdStrikeOrganization
1,368 followers268 public repossince Sep 2012
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | falcon-mcp | 0.14.0 | 21,328 | 15 | 0 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
94
Development activity
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 25.6/36 | Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 185 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 185 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 37 |
Release discipline
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 15 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 0 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~18.2 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 15 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.14.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 0 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 18.2 |
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?
71
Popularity & adoption
59Moderate
How it's scored
| 38/60 | Stars — 221 stars |
| 15.5/25 | Forks — 74 forks |
| 5.8/15 | Watchers — 12 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 74 |
| stars | 221 |
| watchers | 12 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
85Excellent
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (MIT) |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
83
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 25.2/54 | Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 11.6/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 24 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 2 |
| contributors_sampled | 24 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.485 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
83Excellent
How it's scored
| 39.5/42 | Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed |
| 18/30 | PR acceptance — 227/379 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 15/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 227 |
| open_issues | 5 |
| closed_issues | 80 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.941 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 152 |
| 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.
Ownership & stewardship
97Exceptional
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 22.5/25 | Owner reach — 1,368 followers of CrowdStrike |
| 25/25 | Track record — 268 public repos, account ~13 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 1,368 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | CrowdStrike |
| public_repos | 268 |
| account_age_days | 5,039 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 15 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | falcon-mcp |
| ecosystems | pypi |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 0 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
76
Engineering practices
66Good
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 6 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 18/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://developer.crowdstrike.com/falcon-mcp/overview/ |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 5 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | ai, crowdstrike, falcon, mcp, mcp-server |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://developer.crowdstrike.com/falcon-mcp/overview/ |
| docs_site | https://developer.crowdstrike.com/falcon-mcp/overview/ |
| 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?
81
Security posture
81Excellent
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 3.8/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.2/2.5 | CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| 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 — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 4/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| 4/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8 |
| 2/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 7.5/7.5 | Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 5.2/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 8.1 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
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.
44
Agent context & guidance
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | — |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
50Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 8/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | uv.lock |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
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 — 0/142 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | 47,953 |
| source_files_sampled | 142 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 20/20 | MCP server |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples |
| has_mcp_signal | yes |
| api_schema_files | — |
| interfaces_expected_of | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.
Key facts
221GitHub stars
24contributors
185commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
15releases
2bus factor
5open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 8.1 / 10
8.1aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 5 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 9 | CI-Tests | 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 10 | Code-Review | all changesets reviewed |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| 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 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 8 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| 8 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8 |
| 4 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 10 | Token-Permissions | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 7 | Vulnerabilities | 3 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 3
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | crowdstrike-falconpy | >=1.3.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | mcp | >=1.12.1,<2.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | python-dotenv | >=1.1.1 | pyproject.toml |
All dependencies 61
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 58 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | crowdstrike-falconpy | 1.6.3 | direct |
| PyPI | mcp | 1.28.0 | direct |
| PyPI | python-dotenv | 1.2.2 | direct |
| PyPI | annotated-types | 0.7.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | anyio | 4.9.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | ast-serialize | 0.5.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | attrs | 25.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | black | 26.5.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | certifi | 2025.4.26 | indirect |
| PyPI | cffi | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 3.4.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | click | 8.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | cloudpickle | 3.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | colorama | 0.4.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | cryptography | 49.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | falcon-mcp | — | indirect |
| PyPI | falcon-mcp | 0.14.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-adk | — | indirect |
| PyPI | google-cloud-aiplatform | — | indirect |
| PyPI | h11 | 0.16.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | httpcore | 1.0.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | httpx | 0.28.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | httpx-sse | 0.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | idna | 3.18 | indirect |
| PyPI | iniconfig | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | jsonschema | 4.25.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | jsonschema-specifications | 2025.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | librt | 0.11.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | mypy | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | mypy-extensions | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | packaging | 24.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pathspec | 1.0.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | platformdirs | 4.3.8 | indirect |
| PyPI | pluggy | 1.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pycparser | 2.22 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic | 2.11.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic | 2.11.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic | 2.13.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic-core | 2.33.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic-core | 2.46.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | pydantic-settings | 2.9.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pygments | 2.19.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyjwt | 2.13.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | 9.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-asyncio | 1.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-multipart | 0.0.32 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytokens | 0.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pywin32 | 311 | indirect |
| PyPI | referencing | 0.36.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests | 2.34.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | rpds-py | 0.26.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | ruff | 0.15.18 | indirect |
| PyPI | sniffio | 1.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | sse-starlette | 3.4.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | starlette | 1.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-extensions | 4.14.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-extensions | 4.15.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-inspection | 0.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-inspection | 0.4.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.7.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | uvicorn | 0.34.3 | indirect |
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.