Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 18:50 UTC

MISP / misp-stix

MISP-STIX-Converter - Python library to handle the conversion between MISP and STIX formats

PythonBSD-2-Clause★ 63 stars⑂ 23 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

MISP/misp-stix holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MISP ProjectOrganization · verified domain
1,186 followers107 public repossince Apr 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPImisp-stix2026.10.1210,619550 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
29.1/36Commit cadence — 42/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 610 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 22 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year610
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year42
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 32 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 34 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~83.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tag2026.9.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release34
mean_days_between_releases83.1
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.1/60Stars — 63 stars
11.2/25Forks — 23 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks23
stars63
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.7/80Monthly downloads — 10,619 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmisp-stix
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads10,619
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.989
How it's scored
35.8/42Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance — 28/29 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs28
open_issues13
closed_issues75
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.852
closed_unmerged_prs1
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
22.1/25Owner reach — 1,186 followers of MISP
25/25Track record — 107 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,186
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginMISP
public_repos107
account_age_days4,931

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 — 55 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmisp-stix
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://misp.github.io/misp-stix/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmisp, stix, stix2, cyberthreatintelligence
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://misp.github.io/misp-stix/
docs_sitehttps://misp.github.io/misp-stix/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
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 22 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
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages38
unassessed_packages33
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 38 resolved dependencies against OSV. 33 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
39.5/55Manageable file sizes — 26/92 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes562,798
source_files_sampled92
oversized_source_files26

Key facts

63GitHub stars
13contributors
610commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
13open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:misp-stix@2026.10.12; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 23 ⇿
0Stars
23Forks
31Releases

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.

048121620242322021-072024-012026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 31

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-10-12 18:50 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 22 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
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 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpymisp^2.5.34.1pyproject.toml
PyPIstix^1.2.0.11pyproject.toml
PyPIcybox^2.1.0.21pyproject.toml
PyPImixbox^1.0.5pyproject.toml
PyPImaec^4.1.0.17pyproject.toml
PyPIstix-edh1.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools>=83pyproject.toml
PyPIpycountry^24.6.1pyproject.toml
PyPIstix2^3.0.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 71

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 56 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcybox—direct
PyPIcybox2.1.0.21direct
PyPImaec—direct
PyPImaec4.1.0.17direct
PyPImixbox—direct
PyPImixbox1.0.5direct
PyPIpycountry24.6.1direct
PyPIpymisp—direct
PyPIpymisp2.5.34.4direct
PyPIsetuptools84.0.0direct
PyPIstix—direct
PyPIstix1.2.0.11direct
PyPIstix-edh1.0.3direct
PyPIstix2—direct
PyPIstix23.0.2direct
PyPIantlr4-python3-runtime—indirect
PyPIantlr4-python3-runtime4.13.2indirect
PyPIattrs—indirect
PyPIcertifi—indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer—indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdeprecated—indirect
PyPIdeprecated1.3.1indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPIflake83.9.2indirect
PyPIidna—indirect
PyPIidna3.20indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata—indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources—indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.1indirect
PyPIjsonschema—indirect
PyPIlxml—indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.6.1indirect
PyPImisp-lib-stix2—indirect
PyPIordered-set—indirect
PyPIordered-set4.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpkgutil-resolve-name—indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.7.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.3.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyrsistent—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil—indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpytz—indirect
PyPIpytz2026.5indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIsimplejson—indirect
PyPIsimplejson4.2.0indirect
PyPIsix—indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIstix2-patterns—indirect
PyPIstix2-patterns2.1.2indirect
PyPItomli2.5.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions—indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib3—indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIweakrefmethod—indirect
PyPIweakrefmethod1.0.3indirect
PyPIwrapt—indirect
PyPIwrapt2.5.0indirect
PyPIzipp—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 38 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 33 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

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.