Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 17:04 UTC

auth0 / auth0-python

Auth0 SDK for Python

PythonMIT★ 582 stars⑂ 188 forkssince Jul 2014View on GitHub ↗

auth0/auth0-python holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (57/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Auth0Organization · verified domain

2,115 followers345 public repossince Nov 2012

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	auth0-python	6.3.0	7,337,699	79	8 days ago	auth0 authentication authorization oauth openid

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 8 days ago
17.3/36	Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 118 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	118
human_commit_share	0.68
days_since_last_push	8
active_weeks_last_year	25

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 69 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~14.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	69
latest_release_tag	6.3.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	8
mean_days_between_releases	14.7

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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

75Good

How it's scored

44.8/60	Stars — 582 stars
18.9/25	Forks — 188 forks
11/15	Watchers — 96 watchers

Inputs used

forks	188
stars	582
watchers	96
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

77Good

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 7,337,699 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	auth0-python
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	7,337,699
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

92Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

85Excellent

How it's scored

43.2/54	Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 20% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 96 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 53 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	4
contributors_sampled	96
top_contributor_share	0.203

Issue & PR responsiveness

88Excellent

How it's scored

40.9/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
21/30	PR acceptance — 499/712 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	499
open_issues	4
closed_issues	149
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.974
closed_unmerged_prs	213
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

99Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
23.9/25	Owner reach — 2,115 followers of auth0
25/25	Track record — 345 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,115
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	auth0
public_repos	345
account_age_days	5,030

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20	Version history — 79 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	auth0-python
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 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 — 9 out of 9 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

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://auth0-python.readthedocs.io
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 2 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	sdk-python, dx-sdk
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://auth0-python.readthedocs.io
docs_site	https://auth0-python.readthedocs.io
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?

72Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

65Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 53 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 28 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	6.5

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	26
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:auth0-python@6.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 26 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

37Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.9/40	Legible commit history — 47 of 68 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.691
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — src/auth0/management/py.typed, src/auth0/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/auth0/management/py.typed, src/auth0/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.07

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/auth0/management/py.typed, src/auth0/py.typed)
54.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 18/3,819 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	767,762
source_files_sampled	3,819
oversized_source_files	18

Key facts

582GitHub stars

96contributors

118commits, last 12 months

8days since last push

69releases

4bus factor

4open issues

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 ★ / 188 ⇿

0Stars

188Forks

66Releases

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 3Minor 43Patch 19

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10

6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 17:03 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
1	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	9 out of 9 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
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 53 contributing companies or organizations
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	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	28 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	httpx	`>=0.21.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`>= 1.9.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic-core	`>=2.18.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing_extensions	`>= 4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	aiohttp	`>=3.11.18`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`>=44.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyjwt	`>=2.8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.32.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`>=2.3.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 18 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	aiohttp	`—`	direct
PyPI	aiohttp	`3.13.5`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`—`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`47.0.0`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`—`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.3`	direct
PyPI	pydantic-core	`—`	direct
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.3`	direct
PyPI	pyjwt	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.12.1`	direct
PyPI	requests	`—`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`—`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`—`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	direct
PyPI	aiohappyeyeballs	`2.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	aioresponses	`0.7.8`	indirect
PyPI	aiosignal	`1.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	async-timeout	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.4.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	frozenlist	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.13`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mock	`5.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	multidict	`6.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	propcache	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`7.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-aiohttp	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`0.23.8`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	responses	`0.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.8`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	types-python-dateutil	`2.9.0.20260124`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.32.4.20260107`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	yarl	`1.22.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:auth0-python@6.3.0 pulls in 26 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