Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 00:15 UTC

zw008 / VMware-NSX

VMware NSX networking management: segments, gateways, NAT, routing, IPAM — 32 MCP tools

PythonNo license detected★ 4 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindMCP serverLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#agent-skills#ai-skill#claude-code#codex#gemini-cli#mcp#networking#nsx#nsx-t#sdn#vmware

zw008/VMware-NSX holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (16/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

wei zhouPersonal account
18 followers32 public repossince Jan 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIvmware-nsx-mgmt1.7.5-555 days agoai-opsmcpnetworkingnsxnsx-tvmware

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume — 81 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year81
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 54 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count54
latest_release_tagv1.7.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases3.4
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?

16Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

8Critical
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars — 4 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars4
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 62% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.625

Issue & PR responsiveness

64Moderate
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
13.6/30PR acceptance — 5/11 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_prs5
open_issues0
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs6
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.

Ownership & stewardship

53Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.2/25Owner reach — 18 followers of zw008
23.1/25Track record — 32 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers18
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginzw008
public_repos32
account_age_days4,197
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 5 days ago
20/20Version history — 55 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesvmware-nsx-mgmt
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 11 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent-skills, ai-skill, claude-code, codex, gemini-cli, mcp, networking, nsx, nsx-t, sdn, vmware
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

39Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/52 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes23,702
source_files_sampled52
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

4GitHub stars
2contributors
81commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
54releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 00:15 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIhttpx>=0.27,<1.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyper>=0.12,<1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=13.0,<15.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml>=6.0,<7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dotenv>=1.0,<2.0pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=1.10,<2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIvmware-policy>=1.6.0,<2.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPImcp1.28.1direct
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIrich14.3.3direct
PyPItyper0.24.1direct
PyPIvmware-policy1.6.1direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.5indirect
PyPIcryptography49.0.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx-sse0.4.3indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.12.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.14.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32311indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.12indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.3.4indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.42.0indirect
PyPIvmware-nsx-mgmt1.7.5indirect
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 zw008/VMware-NSX. Read them side by side →

95sickn33/agentic-awesome-skillsAAS Core is the local, agent-first control plane for complete catalog discovery, agent-owned selection, stack validation, and planning, backed by 2,000+ agentic skills. Includes CLI, local MCP, catalog, plugins, and Workbench.Exceptional93hashgraph-online/hol-guardOpen-source antivirus for AI agents: block risky tools, secret access, prompt injection, malicious packages, MCP servers, plugins, and skills at runtime.Exceptional93DeusData/codebase-memory-mcpHigh-performance code intelligence MCP server. Indexes codebases into a persistent knowledge graph — average repo in milliseconds. 158 languages, sub-ms queries, 99% fewer tokens. Single static binary, zero dependencies.Exceptional98awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional95cisco-ai-defense/skill-scannerSecurity Scanner for Agent SkillsExceptional94Q00/ouroborosAgent OS: the agent gets smarter on its own. We just hold the line: the grading command and expected result never make it into the success contract we hand it. Interview-gated, staged evaluation, budgeted evolution loop. MCP server, 13 runtimes: Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Copilot, Kiro and more.Exceptional

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.