Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 08:04 UTC

python-trio / trustme

#1 quality TLS certs while you wait, for the discerning tester

PythonCustom license★ 606 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Jul 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#tls#tls-certificate#testing#testing-tools#python#ssl#ssl-certificate

python-trio/trustme holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (56/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. 2 contributors account 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

python-trioOrganization
147 followers32 public repossince Mar 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPItrustme1.2.1867,42616615 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

57Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 8 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share0.45
days_since_last_push8
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

61Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 615 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~43.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv1.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release615
mean_days_between_releases43.3

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

77Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

62Moderate
How it's scored
45.1/60Stars — 606 stars
12.7/25Forks — 34 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks34
stars606
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

79Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

99Exceptional
How it's scored
79.2/80Monthly downloads — 867,426 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestrustme
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads867,426
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?

74Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 22 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 49 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.445

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent
How it's scored
37.2/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance — 572/685 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs572
open_issues4
closed_issues31
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.886
closed_unmerged_prs113
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

69Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.6/25Owner reach — 147 followers of python-trio
23.1/25Track record — 32 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers147
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginpython-trio
public_repos32
account_age_days3,469

Package maintenance

79Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 615 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestrustme
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish615

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://trustme.rtfd.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstls, tls-certificate, testing, testing-tools, python, ssl, ssl-certificate
has_wikino
homepagehttps://trustme.rtfd.io
docs_sitehttps://trustme.rtfd.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 18 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 49 contributing companies or organizations
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
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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_packages4
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:trustme@1.2.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

37Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.7/40Legible commit history — 31 of 45 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.689
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile, noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/trustme/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 55 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, noxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssrc/trustme/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.55

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/trustme/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes19,850
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

606GitHub stars
22contributors
22commits, last 12 months
8days since last push
3releases
2bus factor
4open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 34 ⇿
0Stars
34Forks
3Releases

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.

01325383452017-072022-012026-08
Major 0Minor 2Patch 1

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 08:04 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
8CI-Tests18 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 49 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcryptography>=3.1pyproject.toml
PyPIidna>=2.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 56 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcryptography—direct
PyPIcryptography48.0.0direct
PyPIidna—direct
PyPIidna3.18direct
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIargcomplete3.7.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorlog6.12.0indirect
PyPIcoverage7.15.2indirect
PyPIdependency-groups1.3.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.2indirect
PyPIhumanize4.16.0indirect
PyPIimagesize2.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInox2026.7.11indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyopenssl26.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.5.1indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIservice-identity26.1.0indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.1.1indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-trio1.2.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItypes-cffi2.0.0.20260518indirect
PyPItypes-pyopenssl24.1.0.20240722indirect
PyPItypes-setuptools83.0.0.20260724indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:trustme@1.2.1 pulls in 4 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 python-trio/trustme. Read them side by side →

97twisted/twistedEvent-driven networking engine written in Python.Exceptional99ansible/moleculeAn ansible-native testing framework for collections, playbooks, and roles with configurable workflows for testing any system or serviceExceptional98pytest-dev/pytestThe pytest framework makes it easy to write small tests, yet scales to support complex functional testingExceptional98urllib3/urllib3urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for PythonExceptional99microsoft/playwrightPlaywright is a framework for Web Testing and Automation. It allows testing Chromium, Firefox and WebKit with a single API. Exceptional99aws/s2n-tlsAn implementation of the TLS/SSL protocolsExceptional

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.