Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 04:59 UTC

scito / extract_otp_secrets

Extract one time password (OTP) secrets from QR codes exported by two-factor authentication (2FA) apps such as "Google Authenticator". The exported QR codes from authentication apps can be captured by camera, read from images, or read from text files. The secrets can be exported to JSON or CSV, or printed as QR codes to console.

Python · ShellGPL-3.0★ 1,660 stars⑂ 162 forkssince May 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolDesktop applicationhow this is determined

scito/extract_otp_secrets holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (93/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (47/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Roland KurmannPersonal account
30 followers11 public repossince Jun 2011Lobbywatch.ch

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 7 days ago
24.9/36Commit cadence36/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume108 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained24 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year108
human_commit_share0.42
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year36
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases45 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 57 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~66.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count45
latest_release_tagv2.14.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release57
mean_days_between_releases66.6

Community & Adoption

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

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
52.2/60Stars1,660 stars
18.4/25Forks162 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks162
stars1,660
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges15
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth12 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.962
How it's scored
39.5/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
20.8/30PR acceptance372/537 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs372
open_issues2
closed_issues32
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.941
closed_unmerged_prs165
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.7/25Owner reach30 followers of scito
19.9/25Track record11 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers30
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginscito
public_repos11
account_age_days5,564
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

93Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.flake8
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests17 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://scito.ch/content/extract-secret-keys-google-authenticator-qr-export
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsotp, otpauth, python, recovery, google-authenticator, proto3, totp, qr-codes, tfa, csv, json, protobuf, security, qrcode, 2fa, two-factor, two-factor-authentication, security-tools, standwithukraine, mfa
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://scito.ch/content/extract-secret-keys-google-authenticator-qr-export
docs_sitehttps://scito.ch/content/extract-secret-keys-google-authenticator-qr-export
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests17 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained24 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages108
unassessed_packages21
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 108 resolved dependencies against OSV. 21 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.1/40Legible commit history19 of 42 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.452
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes676
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.flake8
11/11Static type checkingmypy.ini
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance58 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesPipfile.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.58
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (mypy.ini)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes40,599
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)src/google_auth.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filessrc/google_auth.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1,660GitHub stars
12contributors
108commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
45releases
1bus factor
2open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'extract_otp_secrets' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 162 ⇿
0Stars
162Forks
45Releases

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.

0408012016016032020-072023-082026-08
Major 1Minor 17Patch 23

Each point covers 6 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 · 2026-09-20 04:58 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
9CI-Tests17 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/8 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
10Maintained24 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcolorama>=0.4.6pyproject.toml
PyPIopencv-contrib-python==5.0.0.93pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=2.2,<2.3pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=2.4,<2.5pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=2.4pyproject.toml
PyPIPillowpyproject.toml
PyPIprotobuf==7.36.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpyzbarpyproject.toml
PyPIqrcodepyproject.toml
PyPIqreader>=3.16,<4.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 129

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 113 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcoloramadirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6direct
PyPInumpydirect
PyPInumpy2.2.6direct
PyPInumpy2.4.6direct
PyPInumpy2.5.3direct
PyPIopencv-contrib-python5.0.0.93direct
PyPIpillowdirect
PyPIpillow12.3.0direct
PyPIprotobuf7.36.1direct
PyPIpyzbardirect
PyPIpyzbar0.1.9direct
PyPIqrcodedirect
PyPIqrcode8.2direct
PyPIqreaderdirect
PyPIqreader3.16direct
PyPIanyio4.15.1indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.11.1indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.4indirect
PyPIbuildindirect
PyPIbuild1.6.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.1indirect
PyPIcloudpickle3.1.2indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.2indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.3.3indirect
PyPIcontourpy1.4.0indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIcuda-bindings13.4.1indirect
PyPIcuda-pathfinder1.8.1indirect
PyPIcuda-toolkit13.0.3.0indirect
PyPIcycler0.12.1indirect
PyPIdill0.4.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.6indirect
PyPIflake8indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIfonttools4.65.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2026.7.0indirect
PyPIgfm-tocindirect
PyPIgfm-toc0.0.7indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIidna3.19indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort9.0.1indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIkiwisolver1.5.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.15.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.10.9indirect
PyPImatplotlib3.11.2indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImpmath1.3.0indirect
PyPImypyindirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-protobufindirect
PyPImypy-protobuf5.1.0indirect
PyPInetworkx3.4.2indirect
PyPInetworkx3.6.1indirect
PyPInuitkaindirect
PyPInuitka4.2.1indirect
PyPInvidia-cublas13.1.1.3indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-cupti13.0.85indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-nvrtc13.0.88indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-runtime13.0.96indirect
PyPInvidia-cudnn-cu139.24.0.43indirect
PyPInvidia-cufft12.0.0.61indirect
PyPInvidia-cufile1.15.1.6indirect
PyPInvidia-curand10.4.0.35indirect
PyPInvidia-cusolver12.0.4.66indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparse12.6.3.3indirect
PyPInvidia-cusparselt-cu130.8.1indirect
PyPInvidia-ml-py13.610.43indirect
PyPInvidia-nccl-cu132.30.7indirect
PyPInvidia-nvjitlink13.4.52indirect
PyPInvidia-nvshmem-cu133.4.5indirect
PyPInvidia-nvtx13.0.85indirect
PyPIopencv-python5.0.0.93indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.8indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpolars1.44.2indirect
PyPIpolars-runtime-321.44.2indirect
PyPIpsutil7.2.2indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.21.0indirect
PyPIpyinstallerindirect
PyPIpylintindirect
PyPIpylint4.0.8indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mockindirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIqrdet2.5indirect
PyPIquadrilateral-fitter1.12indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIscipy1.15.3indirect
PyPIscipy1.17.1indirect
PyPIscipy1.18.1indirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIsetuptools84.0.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools-git-versioningindirect
PyPIshapely2.1.2indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsympy1.14.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItorch2.14.0indirect
PyPItorchvision0.29.0indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.1indirect
PyPItriton3.8.0indirect
PyPItypes-protobufindirect
PyPItypes-protobuf7.35.1.20260906indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIultralytics8.4.123indirect
PyPIultralytics8.4.149indirect
PyPIultralytics-platform0.1.40indirect
PyPIultralytics-thop2.1.6indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwheelindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 108 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 21 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.