Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 00:37 UTC

protectai / llm-guard

The Security Toolkit for LLM Interactions

PythonMIT★ 3,201 stars⑂ 440 forkssince Jul 2023archivedView on GitHub ↗

KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

#large-language-models #llm #chatgpt #security-tools #adversarial-machine-learning #prompt-engineering #prompt-injection #llmops #llm-security #transformers

protectai/llm-guard holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (89/100) and lowest on Vitality (34/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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)

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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Protect AIOrganization

777 followers16 public repossince Apr 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	llm-guard	0.3.16	-	26	450 days ago	llm language-model security adversarial-attacks prompt-injection prompt-leakage pii-detection self-hardening firewall

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

34At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

24At Risk

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

archived on GitHub by its maintainersOverall rating: Critical ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 35 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
4.3/18	Commit volume — 2 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	2
human_commit_share	0.72
days_since_last_push	35
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

48Weak

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 23 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36	Release recency — latest release 450 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~60.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	23
latest_release_tag	v0.3.16
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	450
mean_days_between_releases	60.1

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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

87Excellent

How it's scored

56.9/60	Stars — 3,201 stars
22/25	Forks — 440 forks
8/15	Watchers — 29 watchers

Inputs used

forks	440
stars	3,201
watchers	29
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

77Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	4
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	20
top_contributor_share	0.927

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good

How it's scored

37.7/42	Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
16.5/30	PR acceptance — 113/206 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 16/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

merged_prs	113
open_issues	12
closed_issues	104
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.897
closed_unmerged_prs	93
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

86Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
20.8/25	Owner reach — 777 followers of protectai
17.7/25	Track record — 16 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	777
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	protectai
public_repos	16
account_age_days	1,591

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

79Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 450 days ago
20/20	Version history — 26 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	llm-guard
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	450

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

89Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

88Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .ruff.toml
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
8/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://protectai.github.io/llm-guard/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	large-language-models, llm, chatgpt, security-tools, adversarial-machine-learning, prompt-engineering, prompt-injection, llmops, llm-security, transformers
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://protectai.github.io/llm-guard/
docs_site	https://protectai.github.io/llm-guard/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1/2.5	CI-Tests — 10 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5	Code-Review — Found 16/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project is archived
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

43Weak

How it's scored

6.8/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: transformers 4.51.3 (critical 9.6), json-repair 0.44.1 (high 7.5)
8.6/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: cryptography 44.0.3 (high 8.2)
27.7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 401 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	38
affected_packages	3
assessed_packages	74
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 2
direct_affected_packages	2

Matched the pypi:llm-guard@0.3.16 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 74 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

18Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.5/40	Legible commit history — 25 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.347
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

82Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, llm_guard_api/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .ruff.toml
11/11	Static type checking — pyrightconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 28 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile, llm_guard_api/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	pyrightconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.28

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pyrightconfig.json)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/217 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	26,353
source_files_sampled	217
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

80Excellent

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — llm_guard_api/openapi.json
0/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples, notebooks

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples, notebooks
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	llm_guard_api/openapi.json
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

3,201GitHub stars

20contributors

2commits, last 12 months

35days since last push

23releases

1bus factor

12open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch pypi package 'llm-guard-api' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 440 ⇿

0Stars

440Forks

21Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 3Patch 18

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10

5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 00:37 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
1	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
4	CI-Tests	10 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8	Code-Review	Found 16/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project is archived
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
8	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 28

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	asyncio	`==3.4.3`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	fastapi	`==0.115.12`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	llm-guard	`==0.3.16`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`==2.11.4`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`==6.0.2`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	uvicorn	`==0.34.2`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	structlog	`>=24`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	slowapi	`==0.1.9`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-instrumentation-fastapi	`==0.54b1`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`==1.33.1`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk	`==1.33.1`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-http	`==1.33.1`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-prometheus	`==0.54b1`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk-extension-aws	`==2.1.0`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-propagator-aws-xray	`==1.0.2`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	psutil	`>=5.9`	llm_guard_api/pyproject.toml
PyPI	bc-detect-secrets	`==1.5.43`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	faker	`>=37,<38`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fuzzysearch	`>=0.7,<0.9`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	json-repair	`==0.44.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	nltk	`>=3.9.1,<4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	presidio-analyzer	`==2.2.358`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	presidio-anonymizer	`==2.2.358`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	regex	`==2024.11.6`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tiktoken	`>=0.9,<1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	torch	`>=2.4.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	transformers	`==4.51.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	structlog	`>=24`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 0

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

Registry	Package	Version	Relation

Dependency advisories 3

Installing pypi:llm-guard@0.3.16 pulls in 74 packages, direct and transitive: 3 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
transformers	`4.51.3`	direct	critical	26	`5.5.0`
json-repair	`0.44.1`	direct	high	1	`0.60.1`
cryptography	`44.0.3`	indirect	high	11	`50.0.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records