Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 07:19 UTC

GoogleCloudPlatform / gce-rescue

GCE Rescue is a command-line tool to boot Google Cloud Platform VMs in Rescue Mode. Topics

PythonApache-2.0★ 54 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Nov 2022View on GitHub ↗

#boot-disk #bootdisk #cloud #gce #gce-instance #gcp #google #rescue #rescue-system #troubleshooting #instances #vm

GoogleCloudPlatform/gce-rescue holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Google Cloud PlatformOrganization

21,257 followers1,498 public repossince Nov 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	gce-rescue	2.3.1	346	12	19 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

62Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36	Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18	Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	15
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	7

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 19 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~165.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	9
latest_release_tag	v2.3.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	19
mean_days_between_releases	165.5

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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

44Weak

How it's scored

28/60	Stars — 54 stars
8.3/25	Forks — 11 forks
7.2/15	Watchers — 21 watchers

Inputs used

forks	11
stars	54
watchers	21
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	below_threshold

Community health

77Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

42Weak

How it's scored

33.9/80	Monthly downloads — 346 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	gce-rescue
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	346
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?

77Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

51Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 47% 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	2
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.467

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good

How it's scored

26.4/42	Issue resolution — 63% of issues closed
20/30	PR acceptance — 74/111 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	74
open_issues	13
closed_issues	22
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.629
closed_unmerged_prs	37
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

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25	Owner reach — 21,257 followers of GoogleCloudPlatform
25/25	Track record — 1,498 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	21,257
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	GoogleCloudPlatform
public_repos	1,498
account_age_days	4,995

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 19 days ago
20/20	Version history — 12 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	gce-rescue
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .pylintrc
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 12 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	boot-disk, bootdisk, cloud, gce, gce-instance, gcp, google, rescue, rescue-system, troubleshooting, instances, vm
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

64Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 16 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 11/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
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
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
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
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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	22
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:gce-rescue@2.3.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 22 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall

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)

73Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .pylintrc
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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	Pipfile.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
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

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.5/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/106 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	63,585
source_files_sampled	106
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

54GitHub stars

8contributors

15commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

9releases

2bus factor

13open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 54 ★ / 0 ⇿

54Stars

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.

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10

6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 07:19 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
8	CI-Tests	16 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 11/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
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
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	13 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
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
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	google-auth	`>=2.42.0`	gce_rescue_v2/pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-api-python-client	`>=2.185.0`	gce_rescue_v2/pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-auth-httplib2	`>=0.2.0`	gce_rescue_v2/pyproject.toml
PyPI	httplib2	`>=0.22.0`	gce_rescue_v2/pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`>=6.0.1`	gce_rescue_v2/pyproject.toml

All dependencies 43

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	google-api-python-client	`—`	direct
PyPI	google-api-python-client	`2.197.0`	direct
PyPI	google-auth	`—`	direct
PyPI	google-auth	`2.50.0`	direct
PyPI	google-auth-httplib2	`—`	direct
PyPI	google-auth-httplib2	`0.3.1`	direct
PyPI	httplib2	`—`	direct
PyPI	httplib2	`0.31.2`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	absl-py	`—`	indirect
PyPI	absl-py	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	astroid	`4.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	bump2version	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	bumpversion	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.6.17`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`48.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	dill	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`—`	indirect
PyPI	google-api-core	`2.30.3`	indirect
PyPI	googleapis-common-protos	`1.75.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	proto-plus	`1.27.2`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`6.33.6`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1-modules	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pylint	`4.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.33.0`	indirect
PyPI	rsa	`4.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	uritemplate	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:gce-rescue@2.3.1 pulls in 22 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 v0.17.0 — 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

More detail

Feedback

Related records