Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 04:29 UTC

exordos / gcl_certbot_plugin

Plugin for certbot to allow dns-01 acme checks in letsencrypt

PythonApache-2.0★ 3 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2025View on GitHub ↗

exordos/gcl_certbot_plugin holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (75/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

exordosOrganization

7 followers27 public repossince Feb 2026

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
PyPI	gcl_certbot_plugin	0.0.12	2,966	11	42 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 10 days ago
7.6/36	Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
14.1/18	Commit volume — 36 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	36
human_commit_share	0.333
days_since_last_push	10
active_weeks_last_year	11

Release discipline

98Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 42 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~42.4 days
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	11
latest_release_tag	0.0.12
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	42
mean_days_between_releases	42.4

Community & Adoption

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

34At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

5Critical

How it's scored

4.9/60	Stars — 3 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	3
watchers	0
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 (Apache-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	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

58Moderate

How it's scored

46.3/80	Monthly downloads — 2,966 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	gcl_certbot_plugin
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,966
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

44Weak

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 33% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.333

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
22.8/30	PR acceptance — 38/50 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	38
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	12
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): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

48Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
6.5/25	Owner reach — 7 followers of exordos
11.6/25	Track record — 27 public repos, account ~0 yr old

Inputs used

followers	7
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	exordos
public_repos	27
account_age_days	203

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 42 days ago
20/20	Version history — 11 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	gcl_certbot_plugin
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	42

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

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
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

topics	—
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?

33At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

28At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

2 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 — 29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
6/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 18 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	28
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	57

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

52Moderate

How it's scored

18.5/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: cryptography 49.0.0 (moderate 5.9)
6.1/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: mysql-connector-python 8.4.0 (high 8.8), setuptools 75.9.1 (high 8.8)
27.8/40	No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 700 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	8
affected_packages	3
assessed_packages	51
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 2, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Matched the pypi:gcl_certbot_plugin@0.0.12 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 51 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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	5,142

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
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 39
8/8	Automated maintenance — 26 of the last 39 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.667

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	9,295
source_files_sampled	8
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

3GitHub stars

3contributors

36commits, last 12 months

10days since last push

11releases

2bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10

5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 04:29 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
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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	29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
8	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	18 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	bazooka	`>=1.3.0,<2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	certbot	`>=3.0.0,<6.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	gcl_iam	`>=0.11.0,<2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	gcl_sdk	`>=0.4.0,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`>=45.0.5,<51.0.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Dependency advisories 3

Installing pypi:gcl_certbot_plugin@0.0.12 pulls in 51 packages, direct and transitive: 3 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
mysql-connector-python	`8.4.0`	indirect	high	2	`9.1.0`
setuptools	`75.9.1`	indirect	high	4	`83.0.0`
cryptography	`49.0.0`	direct	moderate	2	`50.0.0`

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