Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 00:07 UTC

weft-labs / weft-sdk

Python · Ruby · TypeScriptNo license detected★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

weft-labs/weft-sdk holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (20/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
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.

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

Ownership

Weft LabsOrganization
1 follower1 public reposince Jan 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Gogithub.com/weft-labs/weft-sdk/gov0.7.0-72 days ago—
PyPIweft-sdk0.7.0-72 days agomicropaymentspaymentssdkweftx402
RubyGemsweft-sdk0.7.0-72 days ago—
npm@weft-labs/sdk0.7.036482 days agoweftx402paymentsmicropaymentscoinbasesdk

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
17.9/18Commit volume — 97 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year97
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 7 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~23.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.7.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases23.4
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?

20At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

43Weak
How it's scored
34.2/80Monthly downloads — 364 downloads/month across go, npm, pypi, rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/weft-labs/weft-sdk/go, weft-sdk, weft-sdk, @weft-labs/sdk
dependents—
ecosystemsgo, npm, pypi, rubygems
total_downloads1,563
monthly_downloads364
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?

46Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

21At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.833

Issue & PR responsiveness

34At Risk
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
15.2/30PR acceptance — 72/142 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs72
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs70
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

44Weak
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of weft-labs
3.2/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginweft-labs
public_repos1
account_age_days191
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 4 package(s) on go, npm, pypi, rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 8 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/weft-labs/weft-sdk/go, weft-sdk, weft-sdk, @weft-labs/sdk
ecosystemsgo, npm, pypi, rubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

66Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,169
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checking — python/src/weft_sdk/generated/py.typed, typescript/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspython/src/weft_sdk/generated/py.typed, typescript/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (python/src/weft_sdk/generated/py.typed, typescript/tsconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/41 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes8,188
source_files_sampled41
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

50Moderate
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — go/generated/api/openapi.yaml, spec/openapi.yaml
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesgo/generated/api/openapi.yaml, spec/openapi.yaml
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2GitHub stars
4contributors
97commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, npm, PyPI, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 00:06 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-Tests15 out of 16 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 0/27 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
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmmcp-remote0.1.38mcpb/package.json
PyPIhttpx>=0.27.0python/pyproject.toml
PyPIx402>=1.0.0python/pyproject.toml
RubyGemsrake~> 13.0ruby/Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest~> 5.0ruby/Gemfile
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmmcp-remote0.1.38direct
PyPIhttpx—direct
PyPIx402—direct
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0direct
RubyGemsrake13.3.1direct
Gogopkg.in/validator.v2v2.0.1indirect
npm@types/node^25.9.1indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin^8.29.1indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/parser^8.29.1indirect
npmeslint^10.4.1indirect
npmfast-check^4.8.0indirect
npmprettier3.8.3indirect
npmtsup^8.4.0indirect
npmtypescript^6.0.3indirect
npmvitest^4.1.8indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with weft-labs/weft-sdk. Read them side by side →

93ZeusLN/zeusA mobile Bitcoin wallet fit for the gods. ⚡️ Est. 563345Exceptional98juspay/hyperswitchOpen source, composable payments platform | PCI compliant | SaaS and Self-host options | Enables connectivity to multiple payment, payout, fraud, vault and tokenization providers | Uplifts authorization with intelligent routing and revenue recovery | Reduce payment processing costs with cost observability | Reduces payment ops with reconciliationExceptional94lightningnetwork/lndLightning Network Daemon ⚡️Exceptional91sumup/sumup-goGo SDK for the SumUp API.Excellent91basecamp/basecamp-sdkBasecamp software dev kitExcellent90flipt-io/flipt-client-sdksFlipt Client-Side Evaluation SDKsExcellent

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go, PyPI, RubyGems, npm.