Public recordAt Risk
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 16:46 UTC
exordos / gcl_sdk
SDK for Exordos
exordos/gcl_sdk holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.
34
overall / 100Software 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.
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 67 is calibrated to 78 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 followers24 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_sdk | 3.2.0 | 6,483 | 56 | 3 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
94
Development activity
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 1 days ago |
| 28.4/36 | Commit cadence — 41/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 137 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 137 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 1 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 41 |
Release discipline
98Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 55 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 3 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~4.7 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 | 55 |
| latest_release_tag | 3.2.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 3 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 4.7 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
38
Popularity & adoption
12Critical
How it's scored
| 9.8/60 | Stars — 5 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 1 forks |
| 1.7/15 | Watchers — 3 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 1 |
| stars | 5 |
| watchers | 3 |
| 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 | — |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Ecosystem adoption (downloads)
64Moderate
How it's scored
| 50.8/80 | Monthly downloads — 6,483 downloads/month across pypi |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
Inputs used
| packages | gcl_sdk |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | pypi |
| total_downloads | — |
| monthly_downloads | 6,483 |
| 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?
70
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
61Moderate
How it's scored
| 25.2/54 | Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 15.4/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits |
| 10.8/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 8 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 2 |
| contributors_sampled | 8 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.315 |
How it's scored
| 18.9/42 | Issue resolution — 45% of issues closed |
| 26.4/30 | PR acceptance — 131/149 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 | 131 |
| open_issues | 11 |
| closed_issues | 9 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.45 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 18 |
| 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.
Ownership & stewardship
59Moderate
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 6.5/25 | Owner reach — 7 followers of exordos |
| 11/25 | Track record — 24 public repos, account ~0 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 7 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | exordos |
| public_repos | 24 |
| account_age_days | 146 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 56 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | gcl_sdk |
| ecosystems | pypi |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 3 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
86
Engineering practices
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 4 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — tox.ini |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 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
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://exordos.github.io/gcl_sdk/ |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 0/10 | Topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | — |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://exordos.github.io/gcl_sdk/ |
| docs_site | https://exordos.github.io/gcl_sdk/ |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
46
Security posture
32At 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 assessedHow it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 4.5/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 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 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations |
| 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 — 30 commit(s) and 9 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 |
| 5.2/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 18 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 0 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 6.5 |
| high_risk_jurisdiction_cap | 34 |
| high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier | 50 |
| security_posture_after_multiplier | 32 |
| security_posture_before_jurisdiction | 65 |
High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.
Dependency advisories
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 35/35 | Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 0/25 | Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| 0/40 | No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date |
Inputs used
| source | osv |
| advisories | 5 |
| affected_packages | 2 |
| assessed_packages | 94 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | high 2 |
| direct_affected_packages | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 94 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.
35
Agent context & guidance
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 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 | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
53Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — tox.ini |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 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 | yes |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
Code legibility for models
55Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config |
| 54.6/55 | Manageable file sizes — 1/157 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | 66,903 |
| source_files_sampled | 157 |
| oversized_source_files | 1 |
Key facts
5GitHub stars
8contributors
137commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
55releases
2bus factor
11open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- deps.dev does not index pypi:gcl_sdk@3.2.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 6 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 25 out of 25 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 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 8 contributing companies or organizations |
| 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 | 30 commit(s) and 9 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 |
| 7 | Vulnerabilities | 3 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 10
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | oslo.config | >=3.22.2,<10.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | importlib-metadata | — | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | restalchemy | >=15.2.1,<16.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | gcl_iam | >=1.0.0,<2.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | gcl_looper | >=1.0.1,<2.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | bjoern | >=3.2.2 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | izulu | >=0.50.0,<1.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | renameat2 | >=0.4.4,<1.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | xxhash | >=3.5.0,<4.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
| PyPI | orjson | >=3.11.9,<4.0.0 | pyproject.toml |
All dependencies 94
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 84 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | bjoern | 3.2.2 | direct |
| PyPI | gcl-iam | 1.3.2 | direct |
| PyPI | gcl-looper | 1.2.3 | direct |
| PyPI | importlib-metadata | 6.11.0 | direct |
| PyPI | izulu | 0.75.0 | direct |
| PyPI | orjson | 3.11.9 | direct |
| PyPI | oslo-config | 9.8.0 | direct |
| PyPI | renameat2 | 0.4.4 | direct |
| PyPI | restalchemy | 15.2.2 | direct |
| PyPI | xxhash | 3.8.1 | direct |
| PyPI | ast-serialize | 0.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | babel | 2.18.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | backrefs | 7.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | bazooka | 1.3.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | cachetools | 7.1.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | certifi | 2026.6.17 | indirect |
| PyPI | cffi | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 3.4.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | click | 8.4.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | colorama | 0.4.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | coverage | 7.15.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | cryptography | 49.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | debtcollector | 3.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | distlib | 0.4.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | dnspython | 2.8.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | email-validator | 2.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | exceptiongroup | 1.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | filelock | 3.29.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | ghp-import | 2.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | idna | 3.18 | indirect |
| PyPI | iniconfig | 2.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | jinja2 | 3.1.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | legacy-cgi | 2.6.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | librt | 0.13.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | markdown | 3.10.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | markupsafe | 3.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | mergedeep | 1.3.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | mkdocs | 1.6.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | mkdocs-get-deps | 0.2.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | mkdocs-glightbox | 0.5.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | mkdocs-material | 9.7.6 | indirect |
| PyPI | mkdocs-material-extensions | 1.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | mkdocs-static-i18n | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | mock | 5.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | mypy | 2.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | mypy-extensions | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | mysql-connector-python | 8.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | netaddr | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | oslo-i18n | 6.8.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | oslo-i18n | 6.9.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | packaging | 26.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | paginate | 0.5.7 | indirect |
| PyPI | pathspec | 1.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pbr | 7.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | platformdirs | 4.10.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pluggy | 1.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | psycopg | 3.3.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | psycopg-binary | 3.3.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | psycopg-pool | 3.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pycparser | 3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pygments | 2.20.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyjwt | 2.13.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pymdown-extensions | 11.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyproject-api | 1.10.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | 9.1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-timer | 1.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-dateutil | 2.9.0.post0 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-discovery | 1.4.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyyaml | 6.0.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyyaml-env-tag | 1.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests | 2.34.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | rfc3986 | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | ruff | 0.15.21 | indirect |
| PyPI | selectolax | 0.4.10 | indirect |
| PyPI | setuptools | 75.9.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | shellcheck-py | 0.11.0.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | six | 1.16.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | stevedore | 5.8.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | stevedore | 5.9.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | tomli | 2.4.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | tomli-w | 1.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | tox | 4.56.4 | indirect |
| PyPI | tox-uv | 1.35.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | tox-uv-bare | 1.35.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-extensions | 4.16.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | tzdata | 2026.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.7.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | uv | 0.11.28 | indirect |
| PyPI | virtualenv | 21.6.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | watchdog | 6.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | webob | 1.8.10 | indirect |
| PyPI | wrapt | 2.2.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | yretry | 1.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | zipp | 4.1.0 | indirect |
Dependency advisories 2
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 94 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.
| 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 | 3 | 83.0.0 |
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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.