Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 11:27 UTC

SocketDev / socket-python-cli

Socket Python CLI to use in integrations

PythonMIT★ 12 stars⑂ 11 forkssince May 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

SocketDev/socket-python-cli holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (60/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

95
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SocketOrganization · verified domain
837 followers55 public repossince Aug 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIsocketsecurity2.8.1205,1692380 days agoossscasecuritysocket.devsocketsecurity

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

90Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
26.3/36Commit cadence — 38/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 153 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year153
human_commit_share0.51
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year38

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.8.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2
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?

60Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

32At Risk
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
6.5/15Watchers — 16 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars12
watchers16
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonbelow_threshold

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

83Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.467

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
21.6/30PR acceptance — 244/339 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs244
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d8
prs_decided_30d8
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs95
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

96Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
21/25Owner reach — 837 followers of SocketDev
24.7/25Track record — 55 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers837
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginSocketDev
public_repos55
account_age_days2,227

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 — 238 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessocketsecurity
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://socket.dev
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://socket.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

84Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent
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 — 30 out of 30 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
3/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
advisories3
affected_packages2
assessed_packages99
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2
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 99 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://buildkite.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 51 of 51 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://buildkite.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

82Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 12 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 24 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.12
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.24

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.7/55Manageable file sizes — 2/83 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes113,958
source_files_sampled83
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
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

12GitHub stars
18contributors
153commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-03: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 12 stars today.
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:socketsecurity@2.8.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 9 ★ / 11 ⇿
9Stars
11Forks
71Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-03. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

02468101291112024-062025-062026-07
Major 0Minor 3Patch 68

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.0 / 10
8.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 11:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
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
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
6SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIrequests==2.34.2pyproject.toml
PyPImdutils==1.8.1pyproject.toml
PyPIprettytable==3.18.0pyproject.toml
PyPIGitPython==3.1.59pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging==26.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dotenv==1.2.3pyproject.toml
PyPIsocketdev==3.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4==4.15.0pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdown==3.10.3pyproject.toml
PyPIbrotli==1.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIbrotlicffi==1.2.0.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 99

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 87 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIbrotli1.2.0direct
PyPIbrotlicffi1.2.0.2direct
PyPIgitpython3.1.59direct
PyPImarkdown3.10.3direct
PyPImdutils1.8.1direct
PyPIpackaging26.3direct
PyPIprettytable3.18.0direct
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.3direct
PyPIrequests2.33.0direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIsocketdev3.6.0direct
npmaxios1.19.0indirect
npmexpress4.22.0indirect
npmjest29.5.0indirect
npmlodash4.18.1indirect
npmtypescript5.0.4indirect
PyPIanyio4.12.0indirect
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIbackports-zstd1.3.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.11.12indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.1indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIdistro1.9.0indirect
PyPIdocopt0.6.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.22.4indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.1indirect
PyPIflask3.1.3indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhatch1.18.0indirect
PyPIhatchling1.28.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.12.0indirect
PyPIhttpx22.12.0indirect
PyPIhttpx2-jsfetch1.0indirect
PyPIhyperlink21.0.0indirect
PyPIid1.5.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.15indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.0.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.4.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools10.8.0indirect
PyPInh30.3.2indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.2indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytest-watch4.2.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.4.0indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer44.0indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.6indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.2indirect
PyPIsocketsecurity2.8.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.3indirect
PyPItrove-classifiers2025.12.1.14indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItwine7.0.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuserpath1.9.2indirect
PyPIuv0.12.9indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.4.2indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 99 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.3.1indirecthigh18.3.3
jaraco-context6.0.2indirecthigh26.1.0

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with SocketDev/socket-python-cli. Read them side by side →

94RetireJS/retire.jsscanner detecting the use of JavaScript libraries with known vulnerabilities. Can also generate an SBOM of the libraries it finds.Exceptional91OWASP/cve-lite-cliFast, developer-friendly JS/TS dependency vulnerability scanner with local lockfile scanning, OSV matching, direct vs transitive visibility, --fix, JSON output, and practical remediation guidance.Excellent99prowler-cloud/prowlerProwler is the world’s most widely used open-source cloud security platform that automates security and compliance across any cloud environment.Exceptional99cilium/ciliumeBPF-based Networking, Security, and ObservabilityExceptional99DataDog/dd-trace-pyDatadog Python APM ClientExceptional99OpenCTI-Platform/openctiOpen Cyber Threat Intelligence PlatformExceptional

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.