Public record
Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 04:56 UTC

zephyrproject-rtos / west

West, Zephyr's meta-tool

PythonApache-2.0★ 350 stars⑂ 157 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗

zephyrproject-rtos/west holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Security (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (42/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Zephyr ProjectOrganization
2,553 followers179 public repossince May 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIwest1.5.01,617,01878300 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 6 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume117 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained15 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year117
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases16 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 300 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~79.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv1.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release300
mean_days_between_releases79.7

Community & Adoption

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

77Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.2/60Stars350 stars
18.3/25Forks157 forks
8.1/15Watchers30 watchers
Inputs used
forks157
stars350
watchers30
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads1,617,018 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageswest
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads1,617,018
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth41 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled41
top_contributor_share0.546
How it's scored
35.9/42Issue resolution85% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance455/565 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_prs455
open_issues53
closed_issues309
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.854
closed_unmerged_prs110
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
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
24.5/25Owner reach2,553 followers of zephyrproject-rtos
25/25Track record179 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,553
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginzephyrproject-rtos
public_repos179
account_age_days3,707
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 300 days ago
20/20Version history78 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswest
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish300

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/guides/west/index.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrepository-management, flashing, debugging, build-tool, zephyr
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/guides/west/index.html
docs_sitehttps://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/guides/west/index.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

81Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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 14 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
7.5/7.5Maintained15 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate7.6

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages8
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:west@1.5.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 8 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.

42Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingsrc/west/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssrc/west/py.typed
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (src/west/py.typed)
45/55Manageable file sizes4/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes117,681
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

350GitHub stars
41contributors
117commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
53open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 350 ★ / 0 ⇿
350Stars

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.

012525037535062018-072022-072026-07

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10
7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 04:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcolorama~=0.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging~=25.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpykwalify~=1.8pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml~=6.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcoloramadirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6direct
PyPIpackaging25.0direct
PyPIpykwalifydirect
PyPIpykwalify1.8.0direct
PyPIpyyamldirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIcoverage7.13.0indirect
PyPIdocopt0.6.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.7.3indirect
PyPImypy1.19.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpastel0.2.1indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpoethepoet0.38.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.0.2indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml0.18.15indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml-clib0.2.14indirect
PyPIruff0.14.9indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20250915indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:west@1.5.0 pulls in 8 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.17.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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