Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-25 01:51 UTC

GamehunterKaan / AutoPWN-Suite

AutoPWN Suite is a project for scanning vulnerabilities and exploiting systems automatically.

Python · JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 1,144 stars⑂ 147 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

#cybersecurity #exploitation #nmap #pentesting #python #python3 #scanners #vulnerability-scanners #scanner #scanning #penetration-testing #hacking #hacking-tools #infosec #security #security-tools #cyber-security #cybersecurity-tools

GamehunterKaan/AutoPWN-Suite holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Security (97/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (68/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Exceptional

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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kaan GültekinPersonal account

150 followers20 public repossince Jul 2020

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	autopwn-suite	2.8.1	262	24	1 day ago	security penetration-testing vulnerability-scanner exploitation

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
12.5/36	Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 429 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	429
human_commit_share	0.98
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	18

Release discipline

99Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 41 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~11.4 days
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 8 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	41
latest_release_tag	v2.8.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1
mean_days_between_releases	11.4

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

76Good

How it's scored

49.6/60	Stars — 1,144 stars
18/25	Forks — 147 forks
8/15	Watchers — 29 watchers

Inputs used

forks	147
stars	1,144
watchers	29
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 (Apache-2.0)
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	13
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	api.securityscorecards.dev, github.com, shields.io, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

40Weak

How it's scored

32.3/80	Monthly downloads — 262 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	autopwn-suite
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	262
unverified_packages_excluded	—

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?

68Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.706

Issue & PR responsiveness

97Exceptional

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.8/30	PR acceptance — 34/38 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	34
open_issues	0
closed_issues	33
prs_merged_7d	7
prs_decided_7d	7
prs_merged_30d	14
prs_decided_30d	14
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	4
first_time_authors_30d	2
first_time_prs_merged_30d	2
first_time_prs_decided_30d	2

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.7/25	Owner reach — 150 followers of GamehunterKaan
21.6/25	Track record — 20 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	150
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	GamehunterKaan
public_repos	20
account_age_days	2,291

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 1 days ago
20/20	Version history — 24 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	autopwn-suite
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 16 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — eslint.config.mjs, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://kaangultekin.net/projects/autopwn-suite/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 18 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cybersecurity, exploitation, nmap, pentesting, python, python3, scanners, vulnerability-scanners, scanner, scanning, penetration-testing, hacking, hacking-tools, infosec, security, security-tools, cyber-security, cybersecurity-tools
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://kaangultekin.net/projects/autopwn-suite/
docs_site	https://kaangultekin.net/projects/autopwn-suite/
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?

97Exceptional · 16% of overall

Security posture

96Exceptional

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 — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2.5/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Gold
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is 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
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6.8/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 8 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	9.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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	24
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:autopwn-suite@2.8.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 24 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 95 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.969
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	12,075

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 83 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.83
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.02

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.2/55	Manageable file sizes — 5/155 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	134,548
source_files_sampled	155
oversized_source_files	5

Key facts

1,144GitHub stars

8contributors

429commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

41releases

1bus factor

0open 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 ★ / 147 ⇿

0Stars

147Forks

36Releases

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 1Minor 8Patch 26

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 9.6 / 10

9.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-25 01:51 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	8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
10	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: Gold
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is 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
9	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
9	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 8 signed artifacts.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	requests	`>=2.33.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	distro	`*`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`^2.8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`>=50.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask	`^3.1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	flask-cors	`^6.0.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	werkzeug	`^3.1.9`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`—`	direct
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.13.4`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`—`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.2`	direct
PyPI	distro	`—`	direct
PyPI	distro	`1.9.0`	direct
PyPI	flask	`—`	direct
PyPI	flask	`3.1.3`	direct
PyPI	flask-cors	`—`	direct
PyPI	flask-cors	`6.0.2`	direct
PyPI	requests	`—`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.33.0`	direct
PyPI	rich	`—`	direct
PyPI	rich	`14.0.0`	direct
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`—`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	direct
PyPI	werkzeug	`—`	direct
PyPI	werkzeug	`3.1.9`	direct
PyPI	altgraph	`0.17.5`	indirect
PyPI	bandit	`1.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	blinker	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.10.19`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	itsdangerous	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	macholib	`1.16.4`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pefile	`2024.8.26`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	poetry-core	`2.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.11`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller	`6.22.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller-hooks-contrib	`2026.8`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`84.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`84.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.9`	indirect
PyPI	stevedore	`5.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.13.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:autopwn-suite@2.8.1 pulls in 24 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 v0.34.0 — 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