# aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit — health index 71/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/a/aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.17.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 84/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 81/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 81/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 51/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 57/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | :mag: ScanCode detects licenses, copyrights, dependencies by "scanning code" ... to discover and inventory open source and third-party packages used in your code. Sponsored by NLnet, the Google Summer of Code, Azure credits, nexB and other generous sponsors! |
| Homepage | https://scancode-toolkit.readthedocs.io/ |
| Primary language | Python |
| Stars | 2,583 |
| Forks | 752 |
| Created | 2015-07-01 |
| Last push | 2026-07-09 |
| Latest release | commoncode-v32.5.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 220 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | license, copyright, packages, dependencies, spdx, provenance, license-scan, copyright-scan, licensing, spdx-licenses, open-source-licensing, oss-compliance, license-checking, software-composition-analysis, purl, package-url, sbom, sca, cyclonedx, dependency-graph |

## Vitality — 84/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 11 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 27 / 36 | 39/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 220 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 83 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 39 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~66.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 81/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 55.3 / 60 | 2,583 stars |
| Forks | partial | 24 / 25 | 752 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 10.2 / 15 | 69 watchers |

### Community health — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 58/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 7.8 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 65% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 69 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 67/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 27.2 / 46.8 | 58% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 29.7 / 38.2 | 1126/1449 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 10.5 / 15 | Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 17.4 / 25 | 259 followers of aboutcode-org |
| Track record | partial | 22.3 / 25 | 148 public repos, account ~4 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 81/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 6 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://scancode-toolkit.readthedocs.io/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 51/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 56/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | not met | 0 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 5.2 / 7.5 | Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 69 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 3 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |
| SAST | partial | 4.5 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 686 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 33/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1161 resolved dependencies against OSV; 919 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 5.1 / 35 | 7 affected: click 8.3.1 (high 7.2), jinja2 3.0.3 (high 8.8), pygments 2.2.0 (high 7.5), +4 more |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 19.4 / 40 | 6 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 4296 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 57/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 82/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, docs/Makefile, tests/cluecode/data/copyrights/misco4/linux-copyrights/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/Makefile, tests/cluecode/data/ics/bison/GNUmakefile, tests/cluecode/data/ics/bison/Makefile, tests/cluecode/data/ics/bzip2/Makefile, tests/cluecode/data/ics/dnsmasq/Makefile, tests/cluecode/data/ics/stlport/Makefile, tests/cluecode/data/ics/yaffs2-yaffs2-direct/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | src/licensedcode/_vendor/attr/py.typed, src/licensedcode/_vendor/attrs/py.typed |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 6 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |

### Code legibility for models — 81/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (src/licensedcode/_vendor/attr/py.typed, src/licensedcode/_vendor/attrs/py.typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.6 / 55 | 91/3580 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | tests/cluecode/data/ics/chromium-chrome-browser-metrics/system_metrics.proto, tests/cluecode/data/ics/chromium-chrome-browser-userfeedback-proto/annotations.proto, tests/cluecode/data/ics/chromium-chrome-browser-userfeedback-proto/chrome.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples, recipes, samples |

## Collection warnings

- File tree truncated by GitHub API; file-based signals may be incomplete
- Could not fetch pypi package 'scancode-toolkit-devel' from its registry
- Resolved dependency list truncated to 2000 of 2080 packages (counts remain complete)
- Advisory severity resolved for 120 of 444 advisories (lookup cap); the remainder are reported as unknown severity

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt