# aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescript — health index 85/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescript by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 85 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent 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/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescript
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescript
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescript/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/a/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescript.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-13
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.9.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 99/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 80/100 | Good |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Powertools for AWS is a developer toolkit to implement Serverless best practices and increase developer velocity. |
| Homepage | https://docs.aws.amazon.com/powertools/typescript/latest/ |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | MIT-0 |
| Stars | 1,784 |
| Forks | 196 |
| Created | 2020-10-19 |
| Last push | 2026-07-13 |
| Latest release | v2.34.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 876 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | aws, aws-lambda, aws-sdk, lambda, nodejs, powertools, serverless, typescript |

## Vitality — 99/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 35.3 / 36 | 51/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 876 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 99 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 3 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~28.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### 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 — 86/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 52.7 / 60 | 1,784 stars |
| Forks | partial | 19.1 / 25 | 196 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 7.8 / 15 | 26 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT-0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 64/100 (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) — 42/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 9.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 58% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 10 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 45.8 / 46.8 | 98% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 31.3 / 38.2 | 3304/4043 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 62/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 17.8 / 25 | 296 followers of aws-powertools |
| Track record | partial | 13.9 / 25 | 9 public repos, account ~3 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 86/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 25 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | biome.json |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://docs.aws.amazon.com/powertools/typescript/latest/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 8 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 96/100 (Excellent)

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 — 96/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 6 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | partial | 1.2 / 2.5 | badge detected: Passing |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 10 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | met | 5 / 5 | all dependencies are pinned |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6 / 7.5 | 2 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### 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 — 80/100 (Good)

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 — 75/100 (Good)

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

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

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 77/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | biome.json |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | examples/app/tests/tsconfig.json, examples/app/tsconfig.json, examples/snippets/tsconfig.json, layers/tests/tsconfig.json, layers/tsconfig.json, packages/batch/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/batch/tsconfig.json, packages/commons/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/commons/tsconfig.json, packages/data-masking/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/data-masking/tsconfig.json, packages/event-handler/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/event-handler/tsconfig.json, packages/idempotency/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/idempotency/tsconfig.json, packages/jmespath/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/jmespath/tsconfig.json, packages/kafka/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/kafka/tsconfig.json, packages/logger/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/logger/tsconfig.json, packages/metrics/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/metrics/tsconfig.json, packages/parameters/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/parameters/tsconfig.json, packages/parser/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/parser/tsconfig.json, packages/signer/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/signer/tsconfig.json, packages/testing/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/testing/tsconfig.json, packages/tracer/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/tracer/tsconfig.json, packages/validation/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/validation/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | met | 10 / 10 | all dependencies are pinned |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/921 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | examples/snippets/event-handler/appsync-graphql/templates/advancedNestedMappingsSchema.graphql, examples/snippets/event-handler/appsync-graphql/templates/gettingStartedSchema.graphql, examples/snippets/kafka/samples/user.proto, packages/kafka/tests/protos/complex.proto, packages/kafka/tests/protos/product.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples, samples |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch npm package 'aws-lambda-powertools-typescript' from its registry

## 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