Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 15:51 UTC

cloudevents / sdk-python

Python SDK for CloudEvents

PythonApache-2.0★ 342 stars⑂ 65 forkssince Sep 2018View on GitHub ↗

cloudevents/sdk-python holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (80/100) and lowest on Security (61/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CloudEventsOrganization
670 followers13 public repossince Sep 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIcloudevents2.2.011,210,2193877 days agocloudeventseventingserverless

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
9/18Commit volume9 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year9
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases35 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 77 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~41.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tag2.2.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release77
mean_days_between_releases41.5
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?

80Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.1/60Stars342 stars
15.1/25Forks65 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks65
stars342
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads11,210,219 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescloudevents
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads11,210,219
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth24 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled24
top_contributor_share0.3
How it's scored
34.9/42Issue resolution83% of issues closed
24.7/30PR acceptance153/186 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 21/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs153
open_issues17
closed_issues84
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.832
closed_unmerged_prs33
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
20.3/25Owner reach670 followers of cloudevents
20.3/25Track record13 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers670
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincloudevents
public_repos13
account_age_days3,264

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 77 days ago
20/20Version history38 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescloudevents
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish77

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://pypi.org/p/cloudevents/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscloudevents, python3, python, cloudnative, cncf, serverless, events, cloudevents-schema
has_wikino
homepagehttps://pypi.org/p/cloudevents/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/p/cloudevents/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 21/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages4
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:cloudevents@2.2.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history88 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.936
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checkingsrc/cloudevents/py.typed, src/cloudevents/v1/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/cloudevents/py.typed, src/cloudevents/v1/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (src/cloudevents/py.typed, src/cloudevents/v1/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/102 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes37,100
source_files_sampled102
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplessamples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
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

342GitHub stars
24contributors
9commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
35releases
2bus factor
17open 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 ★ / 65 ⇿
0Stars
65Forks
35Releases

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.

01325385063756322018-112022-092026-08
Major 2Minor 16Patch 11

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 15:50 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
2CI-Tests8 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 21/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained3 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdeprecation>=2.0,<3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>=2.8.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 65

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdeprecation2.1.0direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIaiofiles25.1.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.12.1indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIcloudevents2.0.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.8indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIflake8-print5.0.0indirect
PyPIflaskindirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhatchlingindirect
PyPIhtml5tagger1.3.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttptools0.7.1indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.1indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging24.1indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpep8-naming0.15.1indirect
PyPIpillowindirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIruff0.15.14indirect
PyPIsanic25.12.0indirect
PyPIsanic-routing23.12.0indirect
PyPIsanic-testing24.6.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItracerite2.3.1indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20260518indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIujson5.12.0indirect
PyPIuvloop0.22.1indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.26.6indirect
PyPIwebsockets16.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:cloudevents@2.2.0 pulls in 4 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 statisticsPyPI.