Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-19 15:36 UTC

deepgram / deepgram-python-sdk

Official Python SDK for Deepgram.

PythonMIT★ 459 stars⑂ 141 forkssince May 2021View on GitHub ↗

deepgram/deepgram-python-sdk holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (68/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

93
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.

93
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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DeepgramOrganization
671 followers115 public repossince Feb 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIdeepgram-sdk7.7.0-1257 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence27/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume87 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year87
human_commit_share0.77
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 7 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~10.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv7.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release7
mean_days_between_releases10.9
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/60Stars459 stars
17.9/25Forks141 forks
5/15Watchers9 watchers
Inputs used
forks141
stars459
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

88Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 39% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth43 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 17 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled43
top_contributor_share0.391
How it's scored
38/42Issue resolution90% of issues closed
24.3/30PR acceptance375/463 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 20/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs375
open_issues27
closed_issues256
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.905
closed_unmerged_prs88
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
20.3/25Owner reach671 followers of deepgram
25/25Track record115 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers671
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logindeepgram
public_repos115
account_age_days3,830
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 7 days ago
20/20Version history125 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdeepgram-sdk
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish7

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests26 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://developers.deepgram.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsspeech-recognition, asr, deepgram, automated-speech-recognition, python, speech-to-text, text-to-speech, voice-agent, voice-ai
has_wikino
homepagehttps://developers.deepgram.com
docs_sitehttps://developers.deepgram.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests26 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 20/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 17 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
7.5/7.5Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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_packages12
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:deepgram-sdk@7.7.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 12 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history76 of 77 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.987
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes18,330
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingsrc/deepgram/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice8 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssrc/deepgram/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.08
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (src/deepgram/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1,016 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes58,219
source_files_sampled1,016
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

459GitHub stars
43contributors
87commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
3bus factor
27open 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 ★ / 141 ⇿
0Stars
141Forks
100Releases

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.

025507510012515014032021-112024-042026-08
Major 6Minor 39Patch 41

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-19 15:35 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests26 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 20/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIaiohttp>=3.14.1,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.21.2pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx-aiohttp^0.1.8pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>= 1.9.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-core>=2.18.2,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>= 4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIwebsockets>=12.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 78

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 18 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohttp3.13.5direct
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3direct
PyPIhttpxdirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPIhttpx-aiohttp0.1.12direct
PyPIhttpx-aiohttp0.1.8direct
PyPIpydanticdirect
PyPIpydantic2.12.5direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.4direct
PyPIpydantic-coredirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5direct
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4direct
PyPItyping-extensionsdirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0direct
PyPIwebsocketsdirect
PyPIwebsockets16.0direct
PyPIwebsockets16.1.1direct
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.7.1indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIidna3.13indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjson5indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPImypyindirect
PyPImypy1.13.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.4.1indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncioindirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdistindirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutilindirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenvindirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrespx0.23.1indirect
PyPIruffindirect
PyPIruff0.11.5indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutilindirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20260807indirect
PyPItypes-requestsindirect
PyPItypes-requests2.33.0.20260712indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.3indirect
PyPIurllib3indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.23.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.24.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:deepgram-sdk@7.7.0 pulls in 12 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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