Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 10:44 UTC

SocketDev / socket-sdk-python

Python SDK for the Socket API

PythonMIT★ 13 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Nov 2023View on GitHub ↗

SocketDev/socket-sdk-python holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (55/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SocketOrganization · verified domain

839 followers55 public repossince Aug 2020

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	socketdev	3.6.0	-	28	5 days ago	oss sca sdk security socket.dev socketsecurity

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

75Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 5 days ago
13.2/36	Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18	Commit volume — 56 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	56
human_commit_share	0.87
days_since_last_push	5
active_weeks_last_year	19

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 55 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~15.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	55
latest_release_tag	v3.6.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	5
mean_days_between_releases	15.4

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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

28At Risk

How it's scored

17.5/60	Stars — 13 stars
4/25	Forks — 4 forks
6.7/15	Watchers — 17 watchers

Inputs used

forks	4
stars	13
watchers	17
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
12.2/13.5	Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	9
top_contributor_share	0.522

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
26.4/30	PR acceptance — 95/108 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 18/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	95
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	13
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

96Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
21/25	Owner reach — 839 followers of SocketDev
24.7/25	Track record — 55 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	839
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	SocketDev
public_repos	55
account_age_days	2,230

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 5 days ago
20/20	Version history — 28 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	socketdev
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

76Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

70Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 18/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	6
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:socketdev@3.6.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 77 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.885
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 13 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.09
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.13

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.1/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/62 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	68,081
source_files_sampled	62
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

13GitHub stars

9contributors

56commits, last 12 months

5days since last push

55releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'socketdev' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿

0Stars

4Forks

52Releases

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.

Major 2Minor 4Patch 46

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10

7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 10:43 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9	Code-Review	Found 18/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
5	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	requests	`>=2.32.5,<3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`>=4.12.2,<5`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 75

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 73 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	direct
PyPI	anyio	`4.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-zstd	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.11.12`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`46.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.20.1`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatch	`1.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	hatch	`1.16.2`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`1.27.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`1.28.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	hyperlink	`21.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.17`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	pexpect	`4.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	ptyprocess	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`14.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.5`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.13.3`	indirect
PyPI	trove-classifiers	`2025.12.1.14`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	userpath	`1.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	uv	`0.11.17`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.36.1`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.0`	indirect
PyPI	zstandard	`0.25.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:socketdev@3.6.0 pulls in 6 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records