Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 22:28 UTC

yandex-cloud / python-sdk

Yandex.Cloud Python SDK

PythonMIT★ 102 stars⑂ 37 forkssince Oct 2018View on GitHub ↗

yandex-cloud/python-sdk holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Security (23/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Yandex CloudOrganization

674 followers73 public repossince Aug 2018

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	yandexcloud	0.411.0	798,675	399	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36	Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 163 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	163
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	51

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~7.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v0.411.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	7.8

Community & Adoption

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

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

52Moderate

How it's scored

32.5/60	Stars — 102 stars
13/25	Forks — 37 forks
6/15	Watchers — 13 watchers

Inputs used

forks	37
stars	102
watchers	13
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	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	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional

How it's scored

78.7/80	Monthly downloads — 798,675 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	yandexcloud
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	798,675
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?

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

35Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 39 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	39
top_contributor_share	0.716

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good

How it's scored

36.9/42	Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
26.1/30	PR acceptance — 114/131 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	114
open_issues	5
closed_issues	36
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.878
closed_unmerged_prs	17
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
20.3/25	Owner reach — 674 followers of yandex-cloud
25/25	Track record — 73 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	674
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	yandex-cloud
public_repos	73
account_age_days	2,981

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 399 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	yandexcloud
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.pylint], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

topics	—
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?

23At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

18Critical

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — 76 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	3.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	18
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	35

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

43Weak

How it's scored

7.1/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: pyjwt 2.10.1 (critical 9.1), cryptography 44.0.1 (high 8.2), requests 2.32.3 (moderate 5.5)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
25.5/40	No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 490 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	147
affected_packages	13
assessed_packages	81
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 3, high 3, moderate 6, low 1
direct_affected_packages	3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 81 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

37Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.8/40	Legible commit history — 69 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.69
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.flake8], [tool.pylint], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
11/11	Static type checking — yandex/py.typed, yandexcloud/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	yandex/py.typed, yandexcloud/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (yandex/py.typed, yandexcloud/py.typed)
54.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 9/2,450 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	100,007
source_files_sampled	2,450
oversized_source_files	9

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

102GitHub stars

39contributors

163commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

5open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:yandexcloud@0.411.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 37 ⇿

0Stars

37Forks

70Releases

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 0Minor 69Patch 1

Each point covers 7 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 · 2026-10-12 22:28 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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	76 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	cryptography	`>=44.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	grpcio	`>=1.68.1,<2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	protobuf	`>=6.31.1,<7`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	googleapis-common-protos	`>=1.66.0,<2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyjwt	`>=2.10.1,<3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.32.3,<3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	six	`>=1.17.0,<2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	grpcio-tools	`>=1.76.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	deprecated	`>=1.2.18`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 81

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 72 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	cryptography	`44.0.1`	direct
PyPI	deprecated	`1.2.18`	direct
PyPI	googleapis-common-protos	`1.73.0`	direct
PyPI	grpcio	`1.78.0`	direct
PyPI	grpcio-tools	`1.78.0`	direct
PyPI	protobuf	`6.33.5`	direct
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.10.1`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.32.3`	direct
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	direct
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	astroid	`3.3.8`	indirect
PyPI	black	`25.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`5.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.1.31`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`1.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	chardet	`5.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	click-option-group	`0.5.6`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	dill	`0.3.9`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.3.9`	indirect
PyPI	dotty-dict	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`7.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-pyproject	`1.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	gitdb	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	gitpython	`3.1.44`	indirect
PyPI	grpc-stubs	`1.53.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.7`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.10`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-resources	`6.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	mccabe	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-protobuf	`3.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`24.2`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycodestyle	`2.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.22`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.10.6`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.27.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyflakes	`3.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	pylint	`3.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-api	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	python-gitlab	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-semantic-release	`9.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`13.9.4`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	smmap	`5.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.13.2`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`4.24.1`	indirect
PyPI	tox-gh	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	types-deprecated	`1.2.15.20241117`	indirect
PyPI	types-protobuf	`5.29.1.20250208`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.32.0.20241016`	indirect
PyPI	types-six	`1.17.0.20241205`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.12.2`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.29.2`	indirect
PyPI	wrapt	`1.17.2`	indirect
PyPI	yandexcloud	`0.383.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.21.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 13

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 81 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 13 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
pyjwt	`2.10.1`	direct	critical	31	`2.15.0`
black	`25.1.0`	indirect	critical	3	`26.3.1`
gitpython	`3.1.44`	indirect	critical	59	`3.1.62`
cryptography	`44.0.1`	direct	high	10	`50.0.0`
urllib3	`2.3.0`	indirect	high	16	`2.8.0`
virtualenv	`20.29.2`	indirect	high	10	`21.7.13`
requests	`2.32.3`	direct	moderate	4	`2.33.0`
filelock	`3.17.0`	indirect	moderate	4	`3.20.3`
idna	`3.10`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
jinja2	`3.1.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.1.6`
pytest	`8.3.4`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
setuptools	`82.0.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`83.0.0`
pygments	`2.19.1`	indirect	low	2	`2.20.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records