Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 21:36 UTC

Keeper-Security / Commander

Keeper Commander is a python-based CLI and SDK interface to the Keeper Security platform. Provides administrative controls, reporting, import/export and vault management.

PythonMIT★ 245 stars⑂ 84 forkssince Sep 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork serviceCommand-line toolTerminal interfacehow this is determined
#cli#password-manager#password#secrets#security-tools

Keeper-Security/Commander holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (36/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Keeper SecurityOrganization
149 followers63 public repossince May 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIkeepercommander18.0.13-3720 days agosecuritypassword

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 556 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year556
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv18.0.13
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases4.7

Community & Adoption

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

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate
How it's scored
38.7/60Stars — 245 stars
16/25Forks — 84 forks
9.1/15Watchers — 44 watchers
Inputs used
forks84
stars245
watchers44
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

81Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 54 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled54
top_contributor_share0.429

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
40.6/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance — 1,736/1,941 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs1,736
open_issues9
closed_issues266
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.967
closed_unmerged_prs205
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

88Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
15.6/25Owner reach — 149 followers of Keeper-Security
25/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers149
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginKeeper-Security
public_repos63
account_age_days4,812
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 372 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageskeepercommander
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.keepersecurity.com/commander.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscli, password-manager, password, secrets, security-tools
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.keepersecurity.com/commander.html
docs_sitehttps://www.keepersecurity.com/commander.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

45Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
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)

39Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
51.6/55Manageable file sizes — 42/688 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes241,364
source_files_sampled688
oversized_source_files42

Machine-readable interfaces

80Excellent
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — keepercommander/keeper_dag/proto/GraphSync.proto, keepercommander/keeper_dag/proto/router_abbr.proto
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_fileskeepercommander/keeper_dag/proto/GraphSync.proto, keepercommander/keeper_dag/proto/router_abbr.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

245GitHub stars
54contributors
556commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
9open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 21:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 1/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 33
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIasciitree—setup.cfg
PyPIbcrypt—setup.cfg
PyPIzxcvbn—setup.cfg
PyPIcolorama—setup.cfg
PyPIcryptography>=46.0.6setup.cfg
PyPIfido2>=2.0.0setup.cfg
PyPIflask—setup.cfg
PyPIflask-limiter—setup.cfg
PyPIkeeper-secrets-manager-core>=16.6.0setup.cfg
PyPIprompt_toolkit—setup.cfg
PyPIprotobuf>=5.29.6,<6setup.cfg
PyPIgoogleapis-common-protos—setup.cfg
PyPIpsutil—setup.cfg
PyPIpycryptodomex>=3.20.0setup.cfg
PyPIpyngrok—setup.cfg
PyPIpyperclip—setup.cfg
PyPIpython-dotenv—setup.cfg
PyPIkeyring—setup.cfg
PyPIplatformdirs—setup.cfg
PyPIrequests>=2.31.0setup.cfg
PyPItabulate—setup.cfg
PyPIwebsockets—setup.cfg
PyPIkeeper_pam_webrtc_rs>=2.1.18setup.cfg
PyPIpydantic>=2.6.4setup.cfg
PyPIfpdf2>=2.8.3setup.cfg
PyPItzlocal>=5.0setup.cfg
PyPIcbor2—setup.cfg
PyPIpyobjc-framework-LocalAuthentication—setup.cfg
PyPIwinrt-runtime—setup.cfg
PyPIwinrt-Windows.Foundation—setup.cfg
PyPIwinrt-Windows.Security.Credentials.UI—setup.cfg
PyPIkeeper-mlkem—setup.cfg
PyPItextual—setup.cfg
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 33 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIasciitree—direct
PyPIbcrypt—direct
PyPIcbor2—direct
PyPIcolorama—direct
PyPIcryptography—direct
PyPIfido2—direct
PyPIflask—direct
PyPIflask-limiter—direct
PyPIfpdf2—direct
PyPIgoogleapis-common-protos—direct
PyPIkeeper-mlkem—direct
PyPIkeeper-pam-webrtc-rs—direct
PyPIkeeper-secrets-manager-core—direct
PyPIkeyring—direct
PyPIplatformdirs—direct
PyPIprompt-toolkit—direct
PyPIprotobuf—direct
PyPIpsutil—direct
PyPIpycryptodomex—direct
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpyngrok—direct
PyPIpyobjc-framework-localauthentication—direct
PyPIpyperclip—direct
PyPIpython-dotenv—direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPItabulate—direct
PyPItextual—direct
PyPItzlocal—direct
PyPIwebsockets—direct
PyPIwinrt-runtime—direct
PyPIwinrt-windows-foundation—direct
PyPIwinrt-windows-security-credentials-ui—direct
PyPIzxcvbn—direct
PyPIazure-identity—indirect
PyPIazure-keyvault-secrets—indirect
PyPIboto3—indirect
PyPIgoogle-api-python-client—indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth—indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth-httplib2—indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth-oauthlib—indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-secret-manager—indirect
PyPImsal—indirect
PyPIpyinstaller—indirect
PyPIpykeepass—indirect
PyPIpylint—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIradon—indirect
PyPIsendgrid—indirect
PyPItestfixtures—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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Keeper-Security/Commander. Read them side by side →

95GitGuardian/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.Exceptional99trufflesecurity/trufflehogFind, verify, and analyze leaked credentialsExceptional98bitwarden/clientsBitwarden client apps (web, browser extension, desktop, and cli).Exceptional99prowler-cloud/prowlerProwler is the world’s most widely used open-source cloud security platform that automates security and compliance across any cloud environment.Exceptional96blacklanternsecurity/bbotThe recursive internet scanner for hackers. 🧡Exceptional95zizmorcore/zizmorStatic analysis for GitHub ActionsExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.