Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 02:07 UTC

strands-agents / tools

A set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.

PythonApache-2.0★ 1,132 stars⑂ 319 forkssince May 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryChat bothow this is determined

strands-agents/tools holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (28/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 10 contributors account for most of its recent work.

96
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.

96
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 83 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

strands-agentsOrganization
1,984 followers13 public repossince Apr 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIstrands-agents-tools0.8.4-493 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume127 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year127
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year43

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases48 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~9.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count48
latest_release_tagv0.8.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases9.5
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?

84Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
49.5/60Stars1,132 stars
20.9/25Forks319 forks
7/15Watchers19 watchers
Inputs used
forks319
stars1,132
watchers19
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

86Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
54/54Bus factor10 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
20.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 8% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth76 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor10
contributors_sampled76
top_contributor_share0.082
How it's scored
21.7/42Issue resolution52% of issues closed
21.2/30PR acceptance200/283 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs200
open_issues84
closed_issues90
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.517
closed_unmerged_prs83
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
23.7/25Owner reach1,984 followers of strands-agents
10.8/25Track record13 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,984
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginstrands-agents
public_repos13
account_age_days451
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history49 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesstrands-agents-tools
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://strandsagents.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagentic, agentic-ai, agents, ai, anthropic, autonomous-agents, genai, litellm, llm, machine-learning, mcp, multi-agent-systems, ollama, opentelemetry, python, bedrock, llama, openai, strands-agents
has_wikino
homepagehttps://strandsagents.com
docs_sitehttps://strandsagents.com
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
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 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
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
4.5/7.5Token-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_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

28At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/164 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes53,746
source_files_sampled164
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofchat-bot

Key facts

1,132GitHub stars
76contributors
127commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
48releases
10bus factor
84open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index pypi:strands-agents-tools@0.8.4; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 02:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
6Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIstrands-agents>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=14.0.0,<15.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsympy>=1.12.0,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIprompt_toolkit>=3.0.51,<4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIaws_requests_auth>=0.4.3,<0.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPyJWT>=2.10.1,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIdill>=0.4.0,<0.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow>=12.1.1,<13.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItenacity>=9.1.2,<10.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIwatchdog>=6.0.0,<7.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIslack_bolt>=1.23.0,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdownify>=1.0.0,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.28.0,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp>=3.8.0,<4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyping_extensions>=4.0.0,<5.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItzdatapyproject.toml
PyPIbotocore>=1.39.7,<2.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohttpdirect
PyPIaws-requests-authdirect
PyPIbotocoredirect
PyPIdilldirect
PyPImarkdownifydirect
PyPIpillowdirect
PyPIprompt-toolkitdirect
PyPIpyjwtdirect
PyPIrequestsdirect
PyPIrichdirect
PyPIslack-boltdirect
PyPIstrands-agentsdirect
PyPIsympydirect
PyPItenacitydirect
PyPItyping-extensionsdirect
PyPItzdatadirect
PyPIwatchdogdirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.