Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 04:09 UTC

PaloAltoNetworks / terraform-google-swfw-modules

Terraform Reusable Modules for Software Firewalls on GCP

HCLMIT★ 14 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Jan 2024View on GitHub ↗

PaloAltoNetworks/terraform-google-swfw-modules holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (73/100) and lowest on Security (56/100). It was last updated 75 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Palo Alto NetworksOrganization · verified domain
1,511 followers533 public repossince Jun 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/PaloAltoNetworks/terraform-google-swfw-modulesv1.3.2-21985 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

56Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 75 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18Commit volume7 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year7
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push75
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases14 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 75 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~90 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv2.0.13
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release75
mean_days_between_releases90
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars14 stars
9.6/25Forks15 forks
5.6/15Watchers11 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars14
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 65% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth22 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.646
How it's scored
29.4/42Issue resolution70% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance41/46 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 28/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs41
open_issues12
closed_issues28
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.7
closed_unmerged_prs5
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
22.9/25Owner reach1,511 followers of PaloAltoNetworks
25/25Track record533 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,511
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginPaloAltoNetworks
public_repos533
account_age_days4,832
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 985 days ago
20/20Version history21 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/PaloAltoNetworks/terraform-google-swfw-modules
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish985

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/PaloAltoNetworks/swfw-modules/google
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgcp, software-firewalls, swfw, terraform, vmseries
has_wikino
homepagehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/PaloAltoNetworks/swfw-modules/google
docs_sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/PaloAltoNetworks/swfw-modules/google
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 28/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
2/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities64 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.5
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories105
affected_packages14
assessed_packages77
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 4, high 4, moderate 3, unknown 3
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 77 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history97 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.97
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeHCL without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/24 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHCL
largest_source_bytes13,347
source_files_sampled24
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

14GitHub stars
22contributors
7commits, last 12 months
75days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
12open issues
Go, 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 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
12Releases

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.

03581013151512024-012025-032026-04
Major 0Minor 0Patch 12

Each point covers 3 days.

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 · 2026-09-20 04:09 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
2CI-Tests7 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 28/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
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
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities64 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/PaloAltoNetworks/terraform-modules-swfw-tests-skeletonv1.2.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/gruntwork-io/terratestv0.43.6go.mod
All dependencies 77

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 75 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/gruntwork-io/terratest0.43.6direct
Gogithub.com/paloaltonetworks/terraform-modules-swfw-tests-skeleton1.2.1direct
Gocloud.google.com/go0.110.2indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/compute1.19.3indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/compute/metadata0.2.3indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/iam1.1.0indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/storage1.31.0indirect
Gogithub.com/agext/levenshtein1.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/apparentlymart/go-textseg/v1313.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go1.44.122indirect
Gogithub.com/bgentry/go-netrc0.0.0-20140422174119-9fd32a8b3d3dindirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/groupcache0.0.0-20210331224755-41bb18bfe9daindirect
Gogithub.com/golang/protobuf1.5.3indirect
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmp0.5.9indirect
Gogithub.com/google/s2a-go0.1.4indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuid1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/enterprise-certificate-proxy0.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/gax-go/v22.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/errwrap1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-cleanhttp0.5.2indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-getter1.7.1indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-multierror1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-safetemp1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-version1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/hcl/v22.9.1indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/terraform-json0.17.1indirect
Gogithub.com/jinzhu/copier0.0.0-20190924061706-b57f9002281aindirect
Gogithub.com/jmespath/go-jmespath0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compress1.15.11indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-zglob0.0.2-0.20190814121620-e3c945676326indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-homedir1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-testing-interface1.14.1indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflib1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.8.4indirect
Gogithub.com/tmccombs/hcl2json0.3.3indirect
Gogithub.com/ulikunitz/xz0.5.10indirect
Gogithub.com/zclconf/go-cty1.13.2indirect
Gogo.opencensus.io0.24.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/crypto0.9.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/exp0.0.0-20230626212559-97b1e661b5dfindirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.10.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth20.8.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.8.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.9.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/xerrors0.0.0-20220907171357-04be3eba64a2indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/api0.126.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/appengine1.6.7indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto0.0.0-20230530153820-e85fd2cbaebcindirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/api0.0.0-20230530153820-e85fd2cbaebcindirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpc0.0.0-20230530153820-e85fd2cbaebcindirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc1.55.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.31.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.1indirect
PyPIappdirs1.4.4indirect
PyPIcfgv3.2.0indirect
PyPIclick7.1.2indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.0.12indirect
PyPIgoogle-api-python-client2.86.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-secret-manager2.16.2indirect
PyPIidentify2.2.4indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata4.0.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources5.1.2indirect
PyPInodeenv1.6.0indirect
PyPIpan-os-python1.11.0indirect
PyPIpep5170.10.0indirect
PyPIpip-tools6.1.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit2.7.1indirect
PyPIpre-commit3.4.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml5.4.1indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPItoml0.10.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions3.10.0.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.4.6indirect
PyPIzipp3.4.1indirect
Dependency advisories 14

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 77 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 14 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
github.com/hashicorp/go-getter1.7.1indirectcritical81.8.6
golang.org/x/crypto0.9.0indirectcritical413.4.0
google.golang.org/grpc1.55.0indirectcritical121.85.0-dev.0.20260825072537-93e31b48545e
virtualenv20.4.6indirectcritical420.36.1
click7.1.2indirecthigh18.3.3
golang.org/x/net0.10.0indirecthigh2312.0.2
golang.org/x/oauth20.8.0indirecthigh20.27.0
google.golang.org/protobuf1.31.0indirecthigh21.33.0
filelock3.0.12indirectmoderate43.20.3
github.com/ulikunitz/xz0.5.10indirectmoderate20.5.15
zipp3.4.1indirectmoderate23.19.1
github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go1.44.122indirectunknown2
golang.org/x/sys0.8.0indirectunknown10.44.0
golang.org/x/text0.9.0indirectunknown10.39.0

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 statisticsGo.