Public record
Software health reportschema 0.13.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 14:53 UTC

WalletInc / sdk-python

Python SDK to interact with Wallet API

PythonApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#digital-wallet#fintech#wallet#wallet-api#wallet-sdk#wallet-inc#crm#martech#mms#payments#python#sms-api#coupons#discounts#vouchers

WalletInc/sdk-python holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (74/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Wallet Inc.Organization
2 followers8 public repossince Apr 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIwallet2.11.1-310 days agowalletwallet-incsdkapicrmpaymentsrewardsvouchersloyaltymembershipsms

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

64Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
15.6/18Commit volume — 53 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_year53
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 32 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tagv2.11.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.4
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers2
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 (Apache-2.0)
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?

42Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

19Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.818

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
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_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

65Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of WalletInc
18.9/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginWalletInc
public_repos8
account_age_days3,753
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 — 31 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswallet
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

50Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
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://wallet.inc/sdk-python
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 15 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdigital-wallet, fintech, wallet, wallet-api, wallet-sdk, wallet-inc, crm, martech, mms, payments, python, sms-api, coupons, discounts, vouchers
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://wallet.inc/sdk-python
docs_sitehttps://wallet.inc/sdk-python
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak
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
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. 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.

27At Risk · 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)

27At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — wallet/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
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_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configswallet/py.typed
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

79Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (wallet/py.typed)
51.7/55Manageable file sizes — 30/500 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes301,756
source_files_sampled500
oversized_source_files30

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
53commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 14:53 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
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
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
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIurllib3>= 1.25.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>=2.8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions>=4.7.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpydantic—direct
PyPIpydantic2.5.3direct
PyPIpython-dateutil—direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.7.1direct
PyPIurllib3—direct
PyPIurllib32.0.7direct
PyPIannotated-types0.5.0indirect
PyPIcachetools7.1.4indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.12.2indirect
PyPIflake85.0.4indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata4.2.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPImypy1.4.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPIpackaging24.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs2.6.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.2.0indirect
PyPIpy1.11.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.9.1indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.14.6indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.5.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.10.1indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest7.4.4indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly—indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.4.4indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItox3.28.0indirect
PyPItyped-ast1.5.5indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil—indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.8.19.14indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.16.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.15.0indirect
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 WalletInc/sdk-python. Read them side by side →

99quantumlib/CirqPython framework for creating, editing, and running Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) circuits.Exceptional97apify/apify-client-pythonApify API client for Python—Programmatically run Actors, manage and stream data from storages (datasets, key-value stores, request queues), schedule and monitor runs, and access the full Apify platform API. Sync and async interfaces with automatic retries and pagination.Exceptional98juspay/hyperswitchOpen source, composable payments platform | PCI compliant | SaaS and Self-host options | Enables connectivity to multiple payment, payout, fraud, vault and tokenization providers | Uplifts authorization with intelligent routing and revenue recovery | Reduce payment processing costs with cost observability | Reduces payment ops with reconciliationExceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK Exceptional99stripe/stripe-pythonPython library for the Stripe API. Exceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional

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 v0.13.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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