Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 02:22 UTC

salesforce / policy_sentry

IAM Least Privilege Policy Generator

PythonMIT★ 2,166 stars⑂ 157 forkssince Sep 2019View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#aws #iam #cloud #security #cloudsecurity #iam-policy #aws-security #salesforce #hacktoberfest

salesforce/policy_sentry holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (100/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (69/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Exceptional

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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SalesforceOrganization

3,480 followers417 public repossince Oct 2010

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	policy_sentry	0.15.2	-	85	121 days ago	aws iam policies policy privileges roles security

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

79Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 3 days ago
15.9/36	Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
17.1/18	Commit volume — 80 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	80
human_commit_share	0.5
days_since_last_push	3
active_weeks_last_year	23

Release discipline

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 90 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 121 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~71.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	90
latest_release_tag	0.16.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	121
mean_days_between_releases	71.6

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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

80Excellent

How it's scored

54.1/60	Stars — 2,166 stars
18.3/25	Forks — 157 forks
7.5/15	Watchers — 23 watchers

Inputs used

forks	157
stars	2,166
watchers	23
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

44Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	30
top_contributor_share	0.51

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent

How it's scored

40.7/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
26.5/30	PR acceptance — 400/452 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	400
open_issues	5
closed_issues	160
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.97
closed_unmerged_prs	52
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

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25	Owner reach — 3,480 followers of salesforce
25/25	Track record — 417 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	3,480
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	salesforce
public_repos	417
account_age_days	5,770

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 121 days ago
20/20	Version history — 85 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	policy_sentry
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	121

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

100Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://policy-sentry.readthedocs.io/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 9 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	aws, iam, cloud, security, cloudsecurity, iam-policy, aws-security, salesforce, hacktoberfest
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://policy-sentry.readthedocs.io/
docs_site	https://policy-sentry.readthedocs.io/
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?

71Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

64Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 23 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	6.4

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	12
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:policy_sentry@0.15.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 12 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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

24At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.5/40	Legible commit history — 23 of 50 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.46
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

87Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — policy_sentry/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 42 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
7/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	justfile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	policy_sentry/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.42

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (policy_sentry/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/86 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	36,881
source_files_sampled	86
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,166GitHub stars

30contributors

80commits, last 12 months

3days since last push

90releases

1bus factor

5open 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 ★ / 157 ⇿

0Stars

157Forks

90Releases

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 12Patch 66

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10

6.4aggregate

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 02:21 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	23 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 2/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
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
10	Maintained	16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
7	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`>=4.14.0,<5.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click	`>=8.1.0,<9.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.33.0,<3.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	schema	`>=0.7.0,<0.8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	PyYAML	`>=6.0.0,<7.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	orjson	`>=3.11.0,<4.0.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 58

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 52 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	direct
PyPI	orjson	`3.11.9`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	schema	`0.7.8`	direct
PyPI	atomicwrites	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	backrefs	`7.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.6.17`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.2`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.23`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.0`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	griffelib	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-autorefs	`1.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-get-deps	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.7.7`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocstrings	`1.0.6`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocstrings-python	`2.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocstrings-python-legacy	`0.2.7`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	paginate	`0.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	prek	`0.4.11`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pytkdocs	`0.16.5`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	rust-just	`1.57.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	typed-ast	`1.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	types-beautifulsoup4	`4.12.0.20250516`	indirect
PyPI	types-html5lib	`1.1.11.20260518`	indirect
PyPI	types-pyyaml	`6.0.12.20260724`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.33.0.20260712`	indirect
PyPI	types-webencodings	`0.5.0.20260408`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:policy_sentry@0.15.2 pulls in 12 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.

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