Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 14:31 UTC

GreyNoise-Intelligence / pygreynoise

Python3 library and command line for GreyNoise

PythonMIT★ 177 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Dec 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#internet#scanning#threat-intelligence#security

GreyNoise-Intelligence/pygreynoise holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (89/100) and lowest on Vitality (49/100). It was last updated 62 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

77
overall / 100
Good

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.

77
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)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

GreyNoise IntelligenceOrganization
115 followers70 public repossince Sep 2017

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIgreynoise3.1.016,6263362 days agointernetscanningsecuritythreat-intelligence

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

49Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

26At Risk
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 62 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume — 3 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share0.81
days_since_last_push62
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 20 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 62 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~137.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv3.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release62
mean_days_between_releases137.8
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

54Moderate
How it's scored
36.4/60Stars — 177 stars
11.8/25Forks — 27 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars177
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, circleci.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io, sonarcloud.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

70Good
How it's scored
56.3/80Monthly downloads — 16,626 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgreynoise
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads16,626
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?

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.495

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
37.1/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
11.8/30PR acceptance — 318/811 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs318
open_issues9
closed_issues68
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.883
closed_unmerged_prs493
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

70Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14.8/25Owner reach — 115 followers of GreyNoise-Intelligence
25/25Track record — 70 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers115
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginGreyNoise-Intelligence
public_repos70
account_age_days3,278

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 62 days ago
20/20Version history — 33 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgreynoise
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish62

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

89Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://greynoise.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsinternet, scanning, threat-intelligence, security
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://greynoise.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages19
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:greynoise@3.1.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 19 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 66 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.815
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

71Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort]), tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.19

Code legibility for models

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
50.2/55Manageable file sizes — 2/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes86,125
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

177GitHub stars
13contributors
3commits, last 12 months
62days since last push
20releases
2bus factor
9open 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 ★ / 27 ⇿
0Stars
27Forks
17Releases

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.

0510152025302732018-022022-012025-12
Major 3Minor 11Patch 3

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 14:31 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
1CI-Tests3 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 8/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 21
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIClick<=8.1.8pyproject.toml
PyPIClick==8.4.1pyproject.toml
PyPIansimarkup==2.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIcachetools==5.5.2pyproject.toml
PyPIcachetools==6.2.6pyproject.toml
PyPIcachetools==7.0.5pyproject.toml
PyPIcolorama==0.4.6pyproject.toml
PyPIclick-default-group==1.2.4pyproject.toml
PyPIclick-repl==0.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIdict2xml==1.7.8pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2==3.1.6pyproject.toml
PyPImaxminddb==2.6.3pyproject.toml
PyPImaxminddb==2.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPImaxminddb==3.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPImore-itertools==10.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPImore-itertools==10.8.0pyproject.toml
PyPImore-itertools==11.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests==2.32.4pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests==2.32.5pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests==2.34.2pyproject.toml
PyPIsix==1.17.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIansimarkup2.2.0direct
PyPIcachetools5.5.2direct
PyPIcachetools6.2.6direct
PyPIcachetools7.0.5direct
PyPIclick—direct
PyPIclick8.4.1direct
PyPIclick-default-group1.2.4direct
PyPIclick-repl0.3.0direct
PyPIcolorama0.4.6direct
PyPIdict2xml1.7.8direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPImaxminddb2.6.3direct
PyPImaxminddb2.8.2direct
PyPImaxminddb3.1.1direct
PyPImore-itertools10.5.0direct
PyPImore-itertools10.8.0direct
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0direct
PyPIrequests2.32.4direct
PyPIrequests2.32.5direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIsix1.17.0direct
PyPIadvbumpversion1.2.0indirect
PyPIblack24.8.0indirect
PyPIblack25.11.0indirect
PyPIblack26.3.1indirect
PyPIflake87.1.2indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIipython8.13.0indirect
PyPIipython8.18.1indirect
PyPIipython8.38.0indirect
PyPIipython9.10.0indirect
PyPIipython9.12.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIisort6.1.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPImock5.2.0indirect
PyPIpylint3.2.7indirect
PyPIpylint3.3.9indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.5indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.5indirect
PyPIpytest8.4.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIrestructuredtext-lint2.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinx7.1.2indirect
PyPIsphinx7.4.7indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx9.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-click6.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-click6.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-rtd-theme3.1.0indirect
PyPItox4.25.0indirect
PyPItox4.30.3indirect
PyPItox4.52.0indirect
PyPItwine6.1.0indirect
PyPItwine6.2.0indirect
PyPIyamllint1.35.1indirect
PyPIyamllint1.37.1indirect
PyPIyamllint1.38.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:greynoise@3.1.0 pulls in 19 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with GreyNoise-Intelligence/pygreynoise. Read them side by side →

99OpenCTI-Platform/openctiOpen Cyber Threat Intelligence PlatformExceptional97MISP/MISPMISP (core software) - Open Source Threat Intelligence and Sharing PlatformExceptional96GitGuardian/ggshieldDetect and validate 500+ types of hardcoded secrets with advanced checks. Use it as a pre-commit hook, GitHub Action, or CLI for proactive secret detection and security.Exceptional94mongodb/kingfisherDetect leaked secrets + live validation. Map blast radius across your stack. Revoke fast. Hundreds of rules.Exceptional92kaifcodec/user-scanner🕵️‍♂️ (2-in-1) Email & Username OSINT suite featuring native MCP support for deep data extraction just from a single Email/Username. Analyzes 550+ actively maintained scan vectors (175+ email / 375+ username) for security research, investigations, and digital footprinting.Excellent100trufflesecurity/trufflehogFind, verify, and analyze leaked credentialsExceptional

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.