Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-08 18:54 UTC

trailofbits / rfc8785.py

A pure-Python implementation of RFC8785 (JSON Canonicalization Scheme)

Python · MakefileApache-2.0★ 12 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Mar 2024View on GitHub ↗

trailofbits/rfc8785.py holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Security (80/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (52/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Trail of BitsOrganization
3,078 followers288 public repossince Sep 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIrfc87850.1.43,329,2508680 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume25 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share0.625
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases8 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 680 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~29.3 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv0.1.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release680
mean_days_between_releases29.3

Community & Adoption

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

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars12 stars
4/25Forks4 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars12
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads3,329,250 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrfc8785
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads3,329,250
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
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 72% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.725
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
25.4/30PR acceptance39/46 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_prs39
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs7
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach3,078 followers of trailofbits
25/25Track record288 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,078
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logintrailofbits
public_repos288
account_age_days5,080
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 680 days ago
20/20Version history8 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrfc8785
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish680

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests19 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://trailofbits.github.io/rfc8785.py/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscanonicalization, cryptography, json, python, serialization
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://trailofbits.github.io/rfc8785.py/
docs_sitehttps://trailofbits.github.io/rfc8785.py/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

80Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests19 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
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 19 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
4/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
3.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28/40Legible commit history21 of 40 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.525
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingsrc/rfc8785/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 64
8/8Automated maintenance24 of the last 64 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssrc/rfc8785/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.375
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (src/rfc8785/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes8,045
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
6contributors
25commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
1Releases

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.

1223344412024-092025-072026-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 1

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.0 / 10
8.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 18:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests19 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
7SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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