Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-03 18:21 UTC

venth / aws-adfs

Command line tool to ease aws cli authentication against ADFS (multi factor authentication with active directory)

PythonMIT★ 293 stars⑂ 100 forkssince Jun 2016View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#aws #adfs #python #command-line #tools #multi-factor-authentication #duo-security

venth/aws-adfs holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Artur KrysiakPersonal account

29 followers59 public repossince Mar 2013

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	aws-adfs	2.13.0	4,581	121	16 days ago	aws adfs console tool

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

55Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

41Weak

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 16 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18	Commit volume — 7 commits in the last year
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

commits_last_year	7
human_commit_share	0.8
days_since_last_push	16
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

76Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 42 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 16 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~124.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	42
latest_release_tag	v2.13.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	16
mean_days_between_releases	124.1

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

62Moderate

How it's scored

40/60	Stars — 293 stars
16.6/25	Forks — 100 forks
5/15	Watchers — 9 watchers

Inputs used

forks	100
stars	293
watchers	9
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, github.com, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 39 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	39
top_contributor_share	0.571

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good

How it's scored

31.7/42	Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
18.4/30	PR acceptance — 186/303 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	186
open_issues	34
closed_issues	105
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	3
prs_decided_30d	3
issue_closed_ratio	0.755
closed_unmerged_prs	117
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

57Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.6/25	Owner reach — 29 followers of venth
24.9/25	Track record — 59 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	29
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	venth
public_repos	59
account_age_days	4,890

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 16 days ago
20/20	Version history — 121 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	aws-adfs
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

86Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
12/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	aws, adfs, python, command-line, tools, multi-factor-authentication, duo-security
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak

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
1.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 4/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 5 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
2.2/7.5	Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5	Packaging — no data
0.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 20 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	3.5

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

Dependency advisories

53Moderate

How it's scored

14/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: lxml 5.4.0 (high 7.5)
10/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: cryptography 44.0.3 (high 7.5)
29.1/40	No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 173 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	7
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	23
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 2
direct_affected_packages	1

Matched the pypi:aws-adfs@2.13.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 23 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

29At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
29.3/40	Legible commit history — 44 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.55
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.19

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/34 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	45,051
source_files_sampled	34
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

293GitHub stars

39contributors

7commits, last 12 months

16days since last push

42releases

1bus factor

34open 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 ★ / 100 ⇿

0Stars

100Forks

41Releases

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 1Minor 11Patch 20

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10

3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-03 18:20 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6	CI-Tests	6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 4/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 5 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
3	Maintained	4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
1	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	20 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	boto3	`^1.24`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	botocore	`^1.23`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click	`^8.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	configparser	`5.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fido2	`^1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	lxml	`>=4.9,<6.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`^2.27`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests-kerberos	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests-negotiate-sspi	`—`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	boto3	`1.39.4`	direct
PyPI	botocore	`1.39.4`	direct
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	direct
PyPI	configparser	`5.3.0`	direct
PyPI	fido2	`1.2.0`	direct
PyPI	lxml	`5.4.0`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.32.4`	direct
PyPI	requests-kerberos	`0.14.0`	direct
PyPI	requests-negotiate-sspi	`0.5.2`	direct
PyPI	black	`23.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.7.9`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`1.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`43.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	decorator	`5.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.3.9`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	gssapi	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.12`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.10`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jmespath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	krb5	`0.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.3.8`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.22`	indirect
PyPI	pypiwin32	`223`	indirect
PyPI	pyspnego	`0.11.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`7.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`310`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	s3transfer	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sspilib	`0.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	toml	`0.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`1.26.20`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.31.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

Installing pypi:aws-adfs@2.13.0 pulls in 23 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
lxml	`5.4.0`	direct	high	2	`6.1.0`
cryptography	`44.0.3`	indirect	high	5	`48.0.1`

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 v0.30.0 — 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