Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 21:30 UTC

aws / aws-cli

Universal Command Line Interface for Amazon Web Services

PythonCustom license★ 17,259 stars⑂ 4,650 forkssince Nov 2012View on GitHub ↗

aws/aws-cli holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (60/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
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.

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

Ownership

Amazon Web ServicesOrganization · verified domain
16,802 followers552 public repossince Aug 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIawscli1.46.1106,408,8062,49619 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 802 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year802
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year49
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,851 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tag2.0.0dev0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,851
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

95Exceptional · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 17,259 stars
25/25Forks — 4,650 forks
15/15Watchers — 561 watchers
Inputs used
forks4,650
stars17,259
watchers561
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 106,408,806 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesawscli
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads106,408,806
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?

79Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.441
How it's scored
37.8/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
22.9/30PR acceptance — 3,743/4,893 decided PRs merged
1.6/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/8 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs3,743
open_issues508
closed_issues4,506
prs_merged_7d14
prs_decided_7d19
prs_merged_30d19
prs_decided_30d28
issue_closed_ratio0.899
closed_unmerged_prs1,150
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d8
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 16,802 followers of aws
25/25Track record — 552 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers16,802
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginaws
public_repos552
account_age_days5,132

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 19 days ago
20/20Version history — 2,496 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesawscli
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.isort]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://aws.amazon.com/cli/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaws, cloud, aws-cli, cloud-management
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttp://aws.amazon.com/cli/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages9
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:awscli@1.46.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 9 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/llms.txt)
19.4/40Legible commit history — 35 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.aws.amazon.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.365
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — doc/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.isort]), tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdoc/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 19/954 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes169,083
source_files_sampled954
oversized_source_files19
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

17,259GitHub stars
99contributors
802commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
2bus factor
508open 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 ★ / 4,650 ⇿
0Stars
4,650Forks

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

3,5003,7504,0004,2504,5004,7504,650112024-012025-052026-09

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 21:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 31 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIatomicwrites—indirect
PyPIatomicwrites1.4.1indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIawscrt0.36.0indirect
PyPIcheck-manifest0.37indirect
PyPIcolorama—indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.2.7indirect
PyPIdocutils—indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIjinja2—indirect
PyPIjmespath—indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.23.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging24.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpytest8.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil—indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIrsa—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools78.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx6.2indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib3—indirect
PyPIwheel0.46.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:awscli@1.46.1 pulls in 9 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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.