Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 00:32 UTC

thinkst / opencanary

Modular and decentralised honeypot

Python · CSSBSD-3-Clause★ 3,026 stars⑂ 414 forkssince Aug 2015View on GitHub ↗

thinkst/opencanary holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (62/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

92
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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

210 followers30 public repossince Jul 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIopencanary0.9.92,7542852 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
14.3/18Commit volume — 38 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year38
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 52 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~128.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv0.9.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release52
mean_days_between_releases128.4
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
How it's scored
56.5/60Stars — 3,026 stars
21.8/25Forks — 414 forks
10.4/15Watchers — 76 watchers
Inputs used
forks414
stars3,026
watchers76
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
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_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
45.9/80Monthly downloads — 2,754 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesopencanary
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,754
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?

82Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 51 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled51
top_contributor_share0.354
How it's scored
41.8/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
21.9/30PR acceptance — 153/210 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_prs153
open_issues1
closed_issues231
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.996
closed_unmerged_prs57
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16.7/25Owner reach — 210 followers of thinkst
22.9/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers210
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginthinkst
public_repos30
account_age_days4,062

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 52 days ago
20/20Version history — 28 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopencanary
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish52

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
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 site — http://opencanary.org
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://opencanary.org
docs_sitehttp://opencanary.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
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 — 26 out of 30 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 11 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
15.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: cryptography 49.0.0 (moderate 5.9), setuptools 78.1.1 (moderate 6.1)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages34
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 2
direct_affected_packages2
Matched the pypi:opencanary@0.9.9 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 34 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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 88 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.936
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/53 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes40,918
source_files_sampled53
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3,026GitHub stars
51contributors
38commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
12releases
3bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 414 ⇿
0Stars
414Forks
12Releases

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.

010020030040038972015-082021-022026-09
Major 0Minor 2Patch 10

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 00:32 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-Tests26 out of 30 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 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPItwisted==26.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyasn1==0.6.4pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography==49.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsimplejson==3.16.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests==2.33.0pyproject.toml
PyPIzope.interface==7.2pyproject.toml
PyPIpasslib==1.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIJinja2==3.1.6pyproject.toml
PyPIntlmlib==0.72pyproject.toml
PyPIbcrypt==3.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools==83.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIurllib3==2.7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhpfeeds==3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyopenssl==26.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIservice-identity==21.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIidna>=3.15pyproject.toml
PyPIredis==7.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIgitpython>=3.1.51pyproject.toml
All dependencies 82

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbcrypt3.2.0direct
PyPIcryptography49.0.0direct
PyPIgitpython—direct
PyPIgitpython3.1.51direct
PyPIhpfeeds3.0.0direct
PyPIidna3.18direct
PyPIidna3.7direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPIntlmlib0.72direct
PyPIpasslib1.7.1direct
PyPIpyasn10.6.4direct
PyPIpyopenssl26.3.0direct
PyPIredis—direct
PyPIredis7.4.0direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIrequests2.33.0direct
PyPIservice-identity21.1.0direct
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0direct
PyPIsimplejson3.16.0direct
PyPItwisted26.4.0direct
PyPIurllib32.7.0direct
PyPIzope-interface7.2direct
PyPIalabaster0.7.13indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIautomat25.4.16indirect
PyPIbabel2.12.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.1.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIconstantly23.10.4indirect
PyPIdnspython2.8.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.19indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.12indirect
PyPIhyperlink21.0.0indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata6.6.0indirect
PyPIincremental24.11.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py2.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.2indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.3.5indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImyst-parser1.0.0indirect
PyPIordereddict1.1indirect
PyPIpackaging23.1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIparamiko3.4.0indirect
PyPIparamiko3.4.1indirect
PyPIpcapy-ng2.0.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpyasn1-modules0.4.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymongo—indirect
PyPIpymongo4.17.0indirect
PyPIpymysql—indirect
PyPIpymysql1.2.0indirect
PyPIpynacl1.6.2indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytz2023.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0indirect
PyPIscapy2.7.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.3indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsphinx6.2.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.4indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.3indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.5indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

Installing pypi:opencanary@0.9.9 pulls in 34 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
cryptography49.0.0directmoderate250.0.0
setuptools78.1.1directmoderate283.0.0

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.

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 — PyPI.