Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 13:24 UTC

palantir / foundry-platform-python

The official Python SDK for the Foundry API

PythonApache-2.0★ 207 stars⑂ 49 forkssince Jan 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

palantir/foundry-platform-python holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Security (60/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Palantir TechnologiesOrganization · verified domain
5,053 followers268 public repossince Jun 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIfoundry-platform-sdk1.111.0638,1262260 days agopalantirfoundrysdkclientapi
npm@osdk/python-platform-docs1.98.07182103 days ago—

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.2/36Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 108 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year108
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year32

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~8.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag1.111.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases8.4
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?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.5/60Stars — 207 stars
14/25Forks — 49 forks
12.4/15Watchers — 168 watchers
Inputs used
forks49
stars207
watchers168
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
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
77.4/80Monthly downloads — 638,197 downloads/month across npm, pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfoundry-platform-sdk, @osdk/python-platform-docs
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm, pypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads638,197
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
12.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 19 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.433
How it's scored
29.4/42Issue resolution — 70% of issues closed
25.3/30PR acceptance — 311/369 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 17/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs311
open_issues6
closed_issues14
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d7
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio0.7
closed_unmerged_prs58
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 5,053 followers of palantir
25/25Track record — 268 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,053
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginpalantir
public_repos268
account_age_days5,974

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on npm, pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 226 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfoundry-platform-sdk, @osdk/python-platform-docs
ecosystemsnpm, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), tox.ini
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_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry/api
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsocto-correct-managed
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry/api
docs_sitehttps://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry/api
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 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 — 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 17/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 — 23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages31
unassessed_packages3
affected_by_severitynone
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 31 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — docs/v2/AipAgents/Agent.md, docs/v2/AipAgents/models/Agent.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.pydantic.dev/llms.txt)
27.7/40Legible commit history — 52 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.pydantic.dev/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.52
agent_instruction_filesdocs/v2/AipAgents/Agent.md, docs/v2/AipAgents/models/Agent.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,269
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — docs-snippets-npm/tsconfig.json, foundry_sdk/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdocs-snippets-npm/tsconfig.json, foundry_sdk/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (docs-snippets-npm/tsconfig.json, foundry_sdk/py.typed)
50.9/55Manageable file sizes — 22/298 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes551,941
source_files_sampled298
oversized_source_files22

Key facts

207GitHub stars
19contributors
108commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
6open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:foundry-platform-sdk@1.111.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 49 ⇿
0Stars
49Forks
95Releases

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.

010203040504922024-072025-082026-09
Major 0Minor 93Patch 0

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 13:24 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-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
5Code-ReviewFound 17/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIannotated-types>=0.7.0, <1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.6.0, <3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.25.0, <1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx-sse>=0.4.0, <1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions>=4.7.1, <5.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIh11>=0.16.0, <1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIretrying^1.3.7pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml<7.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0direct
PyPIh110.16.0direct
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPIhttpx-sse0.4.3direct
PyPIpydantic2.13.5direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIretrying1.4.2direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0direct
npm@osdk/docs-spec-core^0.5.0indirect
npm@osdk/docs-spec-platform^0.8.0indirect
npmtypescript^5.8.3indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.5indirect
PyPIanyio4.15.1indirect
PyPIbackports-asyncio-runner1.2.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIclick8.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexpects0.9.0indirect
PyPIfastapi0.141.1indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIidna3.20indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImockito2.0.4indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIstarlette1.6.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.4indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.53.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 31 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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, npm.