Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 00:52 UTC

claranet / tfwrapper

Claranet France Terraform & OpenTofu Wrapper

PythonMPL-2.0★ 155 stars⑂ 26 forkssince Oct 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

claranet/tfwrapper holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (51/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ClaranetOrganization

238 followers332 public repossince May 2014

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	claranet-tfwrapper	15.0.1	-	41	62 days ago	terraform wrapper

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

86Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.2/36	Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 137 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	137
human_commit_share	0.45
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	32

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 69 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 62 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~34.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	69
latest_release_tag	v15.0.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	62
mean_days_between_releases	34.5

Community & Adoption

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

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

52Moderate

How it's scored

35.5/60	Stars — 155 stars
11.7/25	Forks — 26 forks
4.7/15	Watchers — 8 watchers

Inputs used

forks	26
stars	155
watchers	8
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MPL-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	14
top_contributor_share	0.604

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good

How it's scored

32.1/42	Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
24.3/30	PR acceptance — 503/622 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	503
open_issues	4
closed_issues	13
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.765
closed_unmerged_prs	119
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

72Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
17.1/25	Owner reach — 238 followers of claranet
25/25	Track record — 332 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	238
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	claranet
public_repos	332
account_age_days	4,514

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 62 days ago
20/20	Version history — 41 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	claranet-tfwrapper
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	62

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	claranet, python, opentofu, terraform
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
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?

67Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

59Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 13 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
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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	25
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:claranet-tfwrapper@15.0.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 25 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 35 of 45 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.778
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

79Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — mise.toml
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), tox.ini
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 53 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	mise.toml
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.53

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.1/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/29 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	71,447
source_files_sampled	29
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

155GitHub stars

14contributors

137commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

69releases

1bus factor

4open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi download statistics for 'claranet-tfwrapper' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 26 ⇿

0Stars

26Forks

67Releases

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 8Minor 19Patch 30

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10

5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 00:51 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	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
9	CI-Tests	18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 13 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
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 13

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	argcomplete	`<4.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	boto3	`>=1.17.94,<2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cachecontrol	`>=0.14.0,<0.15.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	colorlog	`>=5.0.1,<7.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	jinja2	`>=3.0.1,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	lockfile	`>=0.12.2,<0.13.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	natsort	`>=7.1.1,<9.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	packaging	`>=25,<26`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`>=6.0.1,<7.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.25.1,<3.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	schema	`>=0.7.4,<0.8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	semver	`>=3.0.1,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	termcolor	`>=3.3,<3.4`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 64

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	argcomplete	`3.7.0`	direct
PyPI	boto3	`1.43.42`	direct
PyPI	cachecontrol	`0.14.4`	direct
PyPI	colorlog	`6.10.1`	direct
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	direct
PyPI	lockfile	`0.12.2`	direct
PyPI	natsort	`8.4.0`	direct
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	schema	`0.7.8`	direct
PyPI	semver	`3.0.4`	direct
PyPI	termcolor	`3.3.0`	direct
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	botocore	`1.43.42`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`7.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.6.17`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	chardet	`7.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	claranet-tfwrapper	`15.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.29.7`	indirect
PyPI	fpyutils	`4.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	furl	`2.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.19`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jmespath	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	md-toc	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	mock	`5.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	msgpack	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	orderedmultidict	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pook	`2.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-api	`1.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests-mock	`1.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`2026.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.20`	indirect
PyPI	s3transfer	`0.19.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	toml	`0.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`4.34.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	xmltodict	`1.0.4`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:claranet-tfwrapper@15.0.1 pulls in 25 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