Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 16:03 UTC

kedro-org / kedro

Kedro is a toolbox for production-ready data science. It uses software engineering best practices to help you create data engineering and data science pipelines that are reproducible, maintainable, and modular.

PythonCustom license★ 11,003 stars⑂ 1,078 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

kedro-org/kedro holds a health index of 99 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (68/100). It was last updated today. 8 contributors account for most of its recent work.

99
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.

99
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 89 is calibrated to 99 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

KedroOrganization
321 followers21 public repossince Oct 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIkedro1.6.01,203,481728 days agopipelinesmachine-learningdata-pipelinesdata-sciencedata-engineering

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 259 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year259
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 72 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~46 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count72
latest_release_tag1.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases46
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?

94Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 11,003 stars
25/25Forks — 1,078 forks
11.2/15Watchers — 103 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,078
stars11,003
watchers103
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges11
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 1,203,481 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageskedro
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,203,481
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?

88Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
54/54Bus factor — 8 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 13% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor8
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.131
How it's scored
39.9/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
23.5/30PR acceptance — 2,087/2,667 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs2,087
open_issues131
closed_issues2,518
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d25
prs_decided_30d28
issue_closed_ratio0.951
closed_unmerged_prs580
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18/25Owner reach — 321 followers of kedro-org
19.5/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers321
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginkedro-org
public_repos21
account_age_days1,784

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 72 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageskedro
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 18 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://kedro.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicskedro, hacktoberfest, mlops, python, machine-learning, machine-learning-engineering, agentic-ai, agentic-workflow, data-pipelines
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://kedro.org
docs_sitehttps://kedro.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
1.5/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.1
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
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_packages39
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:kedro@1.6.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 39 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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.kedro.org/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 95 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.kedro.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, kedro/templates/project/{{ cookiecutter.repo_name }}/docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — kedro/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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, kedro/templates/project/{{ cookiecutter.repo_name }}/docs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configskedro/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.1
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (kedro/py.typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/234 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes72,856
source_files_sampled234
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
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

11,003GitHub stars
98contributors
259commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
72releases
8bus factor
131open 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 ★ / 1,078 ⇿
0Stars
1,078Forks
68Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

02004006008001,0001,2001,078312019-072023-022026-09
Major 1Minor 11Patch 53

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 16:03 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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 6 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
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
2Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIattrs>=21.3pyproject.toml
PyPIbuild>=0.7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIclick>=8.2pyproject.toml
PyPIcookiecutter>=2.1.1,<3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIdynaconf>=3.1.2,<4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfsspec>=2021.4pyproject.toml
PyPIgitpython>=3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIkedro-telemetry>=0.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPImore_itertools>=8.14.0pyproject.toml
PyPIomegaconf>=2.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIparse>=1.19.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpluggy>=1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML>=4.2,<7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=12.0,<16.0pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>=1.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPItomli-w—pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIattrs—direct
PyPIbuild—direct
PyPIclick—direct
PyPIcookiecutter—direct
PyPIdynaconf—direct
PyPIfsspec—direct
PyPIgitpython—direct
PyPIkedro-telemetry—direct
PyPImore-itertools—direct
PyPIomegaconf—direct
PyPIparse—direct
PyPIpluggy—direct
PyPIpyyaml—direct
PyPIrich—direct
PyPItyping-extensions—direct
PyPIbehave—indirect
PyPIdetect-secrets—indirect
PyPIfastapi—indirect
PyPIimport-linter—indirect
PyPIipylab—indirect
PyPIipython—indirect
PyPIjupyter—indirect
PyPIjupyterlab—indirect
PyPIjupyterlab-server—indirect
PyPImkdocs—indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs—indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps—indirect
PyPImkdocs-material—indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions—indirect
PyPImkdocs-mermaid2-plugin—indirect
PyPImkdocstrings—indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPInotebook—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpandera—indirect
PyPIpre-commit—indirect
PyPIpydantic—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-mock—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIs3fs—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIuvicorn—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:kedro@1.6.0 pulls in 39 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.