Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 18:06 UTC

pglombardo / pwpush-cli

Password Pusher CLI

PythonMIT★ 28 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Aug 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#cli#secrets#secrets-management#security-tools

pglombardo/pwpush-cli holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (45/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Peter Giacomo LombardoPersonal account
216 followers28 public repossince Sep 2010@apnotic

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 publishTags
PyPIpwpushpoints to another repo — not scored0.16.61,635213 days agosecurityclipassworddistributionsharingsecure

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 257 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year257
human_commit_share0.05
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~11 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv0.16.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases11
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

26At Risk
How it's scored
23.2/60Stars — 28 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars28
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

45Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

17Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.966

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate
How it's scored
38.5/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
15.1/30PR acceptance — 727/1,442 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs727
open_issues1
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.917
closed_unmerged_prs715
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

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.8/25Owner reach — 216 followers of pglombardo
22.6/25Track record — 28 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers216
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginpglombardo
public_repos28
account_age_days5,807
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://us.pwpush.com/features
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscli, secrets, secrets-management, security-tools
has_wikino
homepagehttps://us.pwpush.com/features
docs_sitehttps://us.pwpush.com/features
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

60Moderate
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 — 26 out of 26 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 2 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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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_packages16
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:pwpush@0.16.6 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 16 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

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .cursor/rules/001-project-overview.mdc, .cursor/rules/002-implementing-commands.mdc, .cursor/rules/003-api-integration.mdc, .cursor/rules/004-testing-patterns.mdc, .cursor/rules/005-common-pitfalls.mdc, .cursor/rules/006-quick-reference.mdc, .cursorrules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files.cursor/rules/001-project-overview.mdc, .cursor/rules/002-implementing-commands.mdc, .cursor/rules/003-api-integration.mdc, .cursor/rules/004-testing-patterns.mdc, .cursor/rules/005-common-pitfalls.mdc, .cursor/rules/006-quick-reference.mdc, .cursorrules
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,861
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — pwpush/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 95 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
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspwpush/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.95

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pwpush/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/36 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes31,103
source_files_sampled36
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

28GitHub stars
3contributors
257commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
4Releases

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.

12233312023-042023-112024-05
Major 0Minor 1Patch 3

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 18:06 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-Tests26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItyper>=0.16.0,<0.17.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=12.5.1,<14.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.34.2,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIshellingham>=1.5.0,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil>=2.8.2,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIxkcdpass==1.19.9pyproject.toml
All dependencies 90

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 84 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPIrich13.9.4direct
PyPIshellingham1.5.4direct
PyPItyper0.16.1direct
PyPIxkcdpass1.19.9direct
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.2indirect
PyPIbandit1.9.4indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIboolean-py5.0indirect
PyPIcachecontrol0.14.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIcyclonedx-python-lib11.11.0indirect
PyPIdarglint1.8.1indirect
PyPIdecorator5.3.1indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdill0.4.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.2indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIipdb0.13.13indirect
PyPIipython8.39.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPIjedi0.20.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPIlicense-expression30.4.4indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.2.2indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImsgpack1.2.1indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackageurl-python0.17.6indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIparso0.8.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIpip26.2indirect
PyPIpip-api0.0.34indirect
PyPIpip-audit2.10.1indirect
PyPIpip-requirements-parser32.0.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.1indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.53indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.3indirect
PyPIpy-serializable2.1.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydocstyle6.3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.6indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.5.1indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpyupgrade3.21.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIregex2026.7.19indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPIstevedore5.8.0indirect
PyPItokenize-rt6.2.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItraitlets5.16.0indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20260716indirect
PyPItypes-requests2.33.0.20260712indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.1indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pwpush@0.16.6 pulls in 16 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with pglombardo/pwpush-cli. Read them side by side →

95GitGuardian/ggshieldDetect and validate 500+ types of hardcoded secrets with advanced checks. Use it as a pre-commit hook, GitHub Action, or CLI for proactive secret detection and security.Exceptional96blacklanternsecurity/bbotThe recursive internet scanner for hackers. 🧡Exceptional93mongodb/kingfisherDetect leaked secrets + live validation. Map blast radius across your stack. Revoke fast. 1,000+ rules.Exceptional99trufflesecurity/trufflehogFind, verify, and analyze leaked credentialsExceptional99apache/supersetApache Superset is a Data Visualization and Data Exploration PlatformExceptional99prowler-cloud/prowlerProwler is the world’s most widely used open-source cloud security platform that automates security and compliance across any cloud environment.Exceptional

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.