Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-30 06:21 UTC

edx / token-utils

This repo houses the token utils app, meant to be used for the creation, signing, and decoding of various access tokens

Python · MakefileAGPL-3.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

edx/token-utils holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (74/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

edXOrganization · verified domain
307 followers250 public repossince Jan 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIedx-token-utils0.4.0-40 days agopythonedx

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

39Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 5 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~346.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tag0.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases346.1
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?

39Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

10Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
9.9/15Watchers — 62 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers62
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

72Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

56Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 49% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.488

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
19.9/30PR acceptance — 121/182 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs121
open_issues1
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.5
closed_unmerged_prs61
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2

Ownership & stewardship

93Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
17.9/25Owner reach — 307 followers of edx
25/25Track record — 250 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers307
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginedx
public_repos250
account_age_days5,017

Package maintenance

92Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
12/20Version history — 4 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesedx-token-utils
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — setup.cfg ([isort]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages98
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 98 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — setup.cfg ([isort]), tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes14,401
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
14contributors
1commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
5releases
2bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • pypi download statistics for 'edx-token-utils' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:edx-token-utils@0.4.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-30 06:21 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-Tests5 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 99

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 99 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIasgiref3.12.1indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbuild1.6.1indirect
PyPIcachetools7.2.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIchardet7.6.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIclick-log0.4.0indirect
PyPIcode-annotations—indirect
PyPIcode-annotations2.3.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.2indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.1indirect
PyPIdiff-cover10.6.0indirect
PyPIdill0.4.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdjango5.2.17indirect
PyPIdoc82.0.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIedx-i18n-tools2.0.0indirect
PyPIedx-lint6.2.0indirect
PyPIfilelock4.0.5indirect
PyPIid1.6.1indirect
PyPIidna3.20indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort9.0.1indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.6.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPIlxml6.1.3indirect
PyPIlxml-html-clean0.4.5indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInh30.3.7indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpath16.16.0indirect
PyPIpip26.2indirect
PyPIpip-tools7.6.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.12.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpolib1.2.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.15.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydocstyle6.3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.15.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.9indirect
PyPIpylint-celery0.3indirect
PyPIpylint-django2.8.0indirect
PyPIpylint-plugin-utils0.9.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-api1.11.2indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.3.3indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-django4.14.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.1indirect
PyPIpython-slugify9.1.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer46.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrestructuredtext-lint2.0.2indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIroman-numerals4.1.0indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools84.0.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx9.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.6.0indirect
PyPIstevedore5.9.1indirect
PyPItext-unidecode1.3indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItox4.64.4indirect
PyPItwine7.0.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.13.0indirect
PyPIwheel0.48.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 98 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with edx/token-utils. Read them side by side →

100psf/blackThe uncompromising Python code formatterExceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK Exceptional100huggingface/transformers🤗 Transformers: the model-definition framework for state-of-the-art machine learning models in text, vision, audio, and multimodal models, for both inference and training. Exceptional100matplotlib/matplotlibmatplotlib: plotting with PythonExceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional

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.