Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 08:05 UTC

getsentry / responses

A utility for mocking out the Python Requests library.

PythonApache-2.0★ 4,345 stars⑂ 374 forkssince Nov 2013View on GitHub ↗

getsentry/responses holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (62/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

92
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SentryOrganization · verified domain
3,169 followers802 public repossince Feb 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIresponses0.26.367,835,811651 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 54 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~90.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count54
latest_release_tag0.26.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases90.1

Community & Adoption

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

87Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
59/60Stars — 4,345 stars
21.4/25Forks — 374 forks
10.9/15Watchers — 91 watchers
Inputs used
forks374
stars4,345
watchers91
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 67,835,811 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesresponses
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads67,835,811
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?

82Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.308
How it's scored
38.7/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
25/30PR acceptance — 376/452 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 19/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs376
open_issues27
closed_issues318
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.922
closed_unmerged_prs76
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,169 followers of getsentry
25/25Track record — 802 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,169
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logingetsentry
public_repos802
account_age_days5,322

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 65 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesresponses
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/getsentry/responses/blob/master/README.rst
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstag-production
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://github.com/getsentry/responses/blob/master/README.rst
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 19/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages6
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:responses@0.26.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 77 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.794
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — mypy.ini, responses/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, responses/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (mypy.ini, responses/py.typed)
50/55Manageable file sizes — 1/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes89,240
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

4,345GitHub stars
98contributors
28commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
54releases
2bus 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 ★ / 374 ⇿
0Stars
374Forks
53Releases

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.

012525037535662013-112020-042026-08
Major 0Minor 19Patch 34

Each point covers 12 days.

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 · 2026-08-28 08:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests17 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 19/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 14

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIflake8—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-httpserver—indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPItomli-w—indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml—indirect
PyPItypes-requests—indirect
PyPIurllib3—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:responses@0.26.3 pulls in 6 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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