# owasp-dep-scan/dep-scan — health index 84/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository owasp-dep-scan/dep-scan by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/owasp-dep-scan/dep-scan
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/owasp-dep-scan/dep-scan
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/owasp-dep-scan/dep-scan/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/owasp-dep-scan/dep-scan.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-24
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 81/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 60/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 77/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | OWASP dep-scan is a next-generation security and risk audit tool based on known vulnerabilities, advisories, and license limitations for project dependencies. Both local repositories and container images are supported as the input, and the tool is ideal for integration. |
| Classification | cli, web-ui |
| Homepage | https://depscan.readthedocs.io |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 1,281 |
| Forks | 138 |
| Created | 2020-01-28 |
| Last push | 2026-08-16 |
| Latest release | v6.3.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 76 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | vulnerability-scanners, cve, dependency-analysis, risk-audit, containers, sbom, sca, dependency-audit, compliance, cyclonedx, devsecops, security-audit, security-tools, vex, reachability-analysis, supply-chain-security |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | owasp-depscan | 6.3.0 | 10,863 |

## Vitality — 81/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 7 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 11.8 / 36 | 17/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 16.9 / 18 | 76 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 31 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~41.1 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 7 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 64/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 50.4 / 60 | 1,281 stars |
| Forks | partial | 17.8 / 25 | 138 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 6.8 / 15 | 18 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 67/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 53.8 / 80 | 10,863 downloads/month across pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 60/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 37/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 4.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 82% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 21 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 12 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 63/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 27 / 42 | 64% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 27.5 / 30 | 246/268 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 12.5 / 25 | 54 followers of owasp-dep-scan |
| Track record | partial | 11.1 / 25 | 4 public repos, account ~2 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 31 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 66 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 90/100 (Excellent)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 17 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]) |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://depscan.readthedocs.io |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 16 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 58/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 48/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 4.5 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 12 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 3 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 340 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:owasp-depscan@6.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 43 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | met | 25 / 25 | no indirect dependency carries a known advisory |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 77/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 29.9 / 40 | 56 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 78/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | test/data/golem/repos/real-cve-app/vendor/github.com/gorilla/mux/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]) |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | documentation/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 6 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |

### Code legibility for models — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (documentation/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.5 / 55 | 3/107 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt