Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 06:35 UTC

cloudposse / terraform-aws-security-group

Terraform module to provision an AWS Security Group

HCLApache-2.0★ 39 stars⑂ 38 forkssince Jan 2021View on GitHub ↗

cloudposse/terraform-aws-security-group holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (21/100). It was last updated 402 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

57
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Cloud PosseOrganization
1,779 followers244 public repossince Dec 2015

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 402 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push402
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases21 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 1,141 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~65.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tag2.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,141
mean_days_between_releases65.3
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?

67Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
25.6/60Stars39 stars
13.1/25Forks38 forks
6/15Watchers13 watchers
Inputs used
forks38
stars39
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.308
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution75% of issues closed
20.3/30PR acceptance42/62 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs42
open_issues4
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs20
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
23.4/25Owner reach1,779 followers of cloudposse
25/25Track record244 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,779
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincloudposse
public_repos244
account_age_days3,860
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://cloudposse.com/accelerate
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaws, terraform-module, terraform, terraform-modules
has_wikino
homepagehttps://cloudposse.com/accelerate
docs_sitehttps://cloudposse.com/accelerate
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities44 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstraptest/Makefile, test/src/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filestest/Makefile, test/src/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeHCL without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHCL
largest_source_bytes4,043
source_files_sampled1
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 examplesexamples
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

39GitHub stars
14contributors
0commits, last 12 months
402days since last push
21releases
2bus factor
4open issues
package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 06:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities44 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 86

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 86 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gocloud.google.com/go0.110.0indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/compute1.19.1indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/compute/metadata0.2.3indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/iam0.13.0indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/storage1.28.1indirect
Gogithub.com/agext/levenshtein1.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/apparentlymart/go-textseg/v1313.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go1.44.122indirect
Gogithub.com/bgentry/go-netrc0.0.0-20140422174119-9fd32a8b3d3dindirect
Gogithub.com/boombuler/barcode1.0.1-0.20190219062509-6c824513baccindirect
Gogithub.com/cpuguy83/go-md2man/v22.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/spdystream0.0.0-20181023171402-6480d4af844cindirect
Gogithub.com/go-errors/errors1.0.2-0.20180813162953-d98b870cc4e0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/logr1.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/go-sql-driver/mysql1.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/gogo/protobuf1.3.2indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/groupcache0.0.0-20210331224755-41bb18bfe9daindirect
Gogithub.com/golang/protobuf1.5.3indirect
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmp0.5.9indirect
Gogithub.com/google/gofuzz1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuid1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/enterprise-certificate-proxy0.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/gax-go/v22.7.1indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/gnostic0.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/gruntwork-io/go-commons0.8.0indirect
Gogithub.com/gruntwork-io/terratest0.32.8indirect
Gogithub.com/gruntwork-io/terratest0.41.16indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/errwrap1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-cleanhttp0.5.2indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-getter1.7.5indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-multierror1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-safetemp1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-version1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/hcl/v22.9.1indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/terraform-json0.13.0indirect
Gogithub.com/imdario/mergo0.3.11indirect
Gogithub.com/jinzhu/copier0.0.0-20190924061706-b57f9002281aindirect
Gogithub.com/jmespath/go-jmespath0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/json-iterator/go1.1.12indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compress1.15.11indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-zglob0.0.2-0.20190814121620-e3c945676326indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-homedir1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-testing-interface1.14.1indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/modern-go/concurrent0.0.0-20180306012644-bacd9c7ef1ddindirect
Gogithub.com/modern-go/reflect21.0.2indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflib1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pquerna/otp1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/russross/blackfriday/v22.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflag1.0.5indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.6.1indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.8.2indirect
Gogithub.com/tmccombs/hcl2json0.3.3indirect
Gogithub.com/ulikunitz/xz0.5.10indirect
Gogithub.com/urfave/cli1.22.2indirect
Gogithub.com/zclconf/go-cty1.9.1indirect
Gogo.opencensus.io0.24.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/crypto0.0.0-20200820211705-5c72a883971aindirect
Gogolang.org/x/crypto0.17.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.0.0-20200822124328-c89045814202indirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.10.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth20.7.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20200828194041-157a740278f4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.15.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/term0.15.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.14.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/time0.0.0-20200630173020-3af7569d3a1eindirect
Gogolang.org/x/xerrors0.0.0-20220907171357-04be3eba64a2indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/api0.114.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/appengine1.6.7indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto0.0.0-20230410155749-daa745c078e1indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc1.56.3indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.30.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/inf.v00.9.1indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v22.4.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.0-20200615113413-eeeca48fe776indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.1indirect
Gok8s.io/api0.20.6indirect
Gok8s.io/apimachinery0.20.6indirect
Gok8s.io/client-go0.20.6indirect
Gok8s.io/klog/v22.80.1indirect
Gok8s.io/utils0.0.0-20221107191617-1a15be271d1dindirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/structured-merge-diff/v33.0.0indirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/structured-merge-diff/v44.2.3indirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/yaml1.3.0indirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.