Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-08 01:12 UTC

laramies / theHarvester

E-mails, subdomains and names Harvester - OSINT

PythonGPL-2.0★ 17,869 stars⑂ 2,651 forkssince Jan 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

laramies/theHarvester holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (58/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

93
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.

93
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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Christian MartorellaPersonal account
1,040 followers10 public repossince Jan 2011

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPItheHarvester0.0.18,47212802 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 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 — 787 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year787
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 38 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 126 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~41.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count38
latest_release_tag4.11.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release126
mean_days_between_releases41.4
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?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 17,869 stars
25/25Forks — 2,651 forks
14.1/15Watchers — 349 watchers
Inputs used
forks2,651
stars17,869
watchers349
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.4/80Monthly downloads — 8,472 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestheHarvester
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads8,472
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.544
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
23.5/30PR acceptance — 1,638/2,093 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs1,638
open_issues3
closed_issues492
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d10
prs_decided_30d13
issue_closed_ratio0.994
closed_unmerged_prs455
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
21.7/25Owner reach — 1,040 followers of laramies
19.6/25Track record — 10 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,040
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginlaramies
public_repos10
account_age_days5,758
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 2,802 days ago
4/20Version history — 1 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestheHarvester
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2,802

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://www.edge-security.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsosint, subdomain-enumeration, redteam, recon, blueteam, discovery, emails, python, information-gathering, reconnaissance
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.edge-security.com/
docs_sitehttp://www.edge-security.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages61
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
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 61 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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 76 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.844
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,275
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.4/55Manageable file sizes — 7/236 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes182,676
source_files_sampled236
oversized_source_files7

Key facts

17,869GitHub stars
98contributors
787commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
38releases
1bus factor
3open 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 ★ / 2,651 ⇿
0Stars
2,651Forks
18Releases

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.

1,5001,7502,0002,2502,5002,7502,651182023-072025-032026-10
Major 0Minor 7Patch 11

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-08 01:11 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIaiodns==4.0.4pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp==3.14.3pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp-socks==0.11.0pyproject.toml
PyPIaiosqlite==0.22.1pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4==4.15.0pyproject.toml
PyPIcertifi==2026.6.17pyproject.toml
PyPIfastapi==0.138.1pyproject.toml
PyPInetaddr==1.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplaywright==1.60.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML==6.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil==2.9.0.post0pyproject.toml
PyPIsqlalchemy==2.0.51pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn==0.52.1pyproject.toml
PyPIuvloop==0.22.1pyproject.toml
PyPIwinloop==0.6.3pyproject.toml
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiodns4.0.4direct
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3direct
PyPIaiohttp-socks0.11.0direct
PyPIaiosqlite0.22.1direct
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17direct
PyPIfastapi0.138.1direct
PyPInetaddr1.3.0direct
PyPIplaywright1.60.0direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIsqlalchemy2.0.51direct
PyPIuvicorn0.52.1direct
PyPIuvloop0.22.1direct
PyPIwinloop0.6.3direct
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.2indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIclick8.4.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.5.1indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.2indirect
PyPIpycares5.0.1indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpyee13.0.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-base-url2.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-playwright0.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-slugify8.0.4indirect
PyPIpython-socks2.8.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIruff0.16.3indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.9indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPItext-unidecode1.3indirect
PyPIty0.0.72indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20250915indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.24.2indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 61 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
multidict6.7.1indirectmoderate16.9.1

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.