Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 05:29 UTC

nxp-mcuxpresso / spsdk

Secure Provisioning SDK (SPSDK) is unified, reliable and easy to use SW library working across NXP MCU portfolio providing strong foundation from quick customer prototyping up to production deployment.

PythonCustom license★ 79 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Jun 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

nxp-mcuxpresso/spsdk holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

NXP MCUXpressoOrganization · verified domain
320 followers140 public repossince Oct 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIspsdkpoints to another repo — not scored3.12.0260,398465 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year23
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 45 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~42.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count45
latest_release_tagv3.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases42.4
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?

47Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

49Weak
How it's scored
30.7/60Stars — 79 stars
12.5/25Forks — 33 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks33
stars79
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

74Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

56Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.474

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
37.7/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
22.7/30PR acceptance — 47/62 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs47
open_issues6
closed_issues52
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.897
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

89Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
18/25Owner reach — 320 followers of nxp-mcuxpresso
21/25Track record — 140 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers320
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginnxp-mcuxpresso
public_repos140
account_age_days1,454

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

85Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

92Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort]), tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no 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
3/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

69Good
How it's scored
18.5/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: cryptography 49.0.0 (moderate 5.9)
15/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: wasmtime 24.0.0 (moderate 5.0)
35.6/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 739 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages65
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 2
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the pypi:spsdk@3.12.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 65 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.

79Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

65Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.3/40Legible commit history — 37 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.381
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,976

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

82Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .pylintrc, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — spsdk/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsspsdk/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03

Code legibility for models

79Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (spsdk/py.typed)
51.8/55Manageable file sizes — 38/647 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes245,730
source_files_sampled647
oversized_source_files38

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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 — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

79GitHub stars
12contributors
23commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
45releases
2bus factor
6open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi package 'spsdk' points at a different repository (https://github.com/NXPmicro/spsdk); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿
0Stars
33Forks
43Releases

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.

01325383322020-062023-062026-07
Major 2Minor 24Patch 15

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 05:27 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests12 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 13/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities20 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 85

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 85 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIasn1crypto—indirect
PyPIbincopy—indirect
PyPIbitstring—indirect
PyPIblack—indirect
PyPIcachier—indirect
PyPIchardet—indirect
PyPIclick—indirect
PyPIclick-command-tree—indirect
PyPIclick-option-group—indirect
PyPIcolorama—indirect
PyPIcookiecutter—indirect
PyPIcrcmod-plus—indirect
PyPIcryptography—indirect
PyPIdeepmerge—indirect
PyPIdocutils—indirect
PyPIfastjsonschema—indirect
PyPIfilelock—indirect
PyPIflask—indirect
PyPIgmssl—indirect
PyPIhexdump—indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata—indirect
PyPIinquirerpy—indirect
PyPIipykernel—indirect
PyPIipython—indirect
PyPIjira—indirect
PyPIjson-schema-for-humans—indirect
PyPIlibusbsio—indirect
PyPIlibuuu—indirect
PyPIlief—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPImyst-nb—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPInbclient—indirect
PyPInbformat—indirect
PyPInbsphinx—indirect
PyPInotebook—indirect
PyPInxp-codecheck—indirect
PyPIopenpyxl—indirect
PyPIoscrypto—indirect
PyPIpackaging—indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpip—indirect
PyPIplatformdirs—indirect
PyPIpre-commit—indirect
PyPIprettytable—indirect
PyPIpyasn1—indirect
PyPIpyhsslms—indirect
PyPIpyinstaller—indirect
PyPIpyinstaller-hooks-contrib—indirect
PyPIpylint—indirect
PyPIpymboot-rs—indirect
PyPIpyserial—indirect
PyPIpytablewriter—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpython-can—indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml—indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml-clib—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm—indirect
PyPIsly—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-annotation—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehints—indirect
PyPIsphinx-book-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx-click—indirect
PyPIsphinxext-rediraffe—indirect
PyPIspsdk—indirect
PyPIspsdk-jlink—indirect
PyPIspsdk-lauterbach—indirect
PyPIspsdk-mcu-link—indirect
PyPIspsdk-pemicro—indirect
PyPIspsdk-pkcs11—indirect
PyPIspsdk-pqc—indirect
PyPIspsdk-pylint-plugins—indirect
PyPIspsdk-pyocd—indirect
PyPItox—indirect
PyPItox-uv—indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml—indirect
PyPItypes-requests—indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools—indirect
PyPItyping-extensions—indirect
PyPIuv—indirect
PyPIvoluptuous—indirect
PyPIx690—indirect
Dependency advisories 2

Installing pypi:spsdk@3.12.0 pulls in 65 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
cryptography49.0.0directmoderate250.0.0
wasmtime24.0.0indirectmoderate2—

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with nxp-mcuxpresso/spsdk. Read them side by side →

100optuna/optunaA hyperparameter optimization frameworkExceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-pythonOpenTelemetry Python API and SDK Exceptional100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional100home-assistant/frontend:lollipop: Frontend for Home AssistantExceptional100aws/aws-sam-cliCLI tool to build, test, debug, and deploy Serverless applications using AWS SAMExceptional100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional

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.