Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 23:18 UTC

15r10nk / inline-snapshot

inline-snapshot boosts efficiency when writing tests by generating code with the expected values and simplifies snapshot tests with pytest.

PythonMIT★ 743 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Jul 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#approval-testing#golden-master#pytest#python#snapshot-testing#testing#pytest-plugin#snapshot#snapshot-plugin#snapshot-test#snapshot-tests#snapshottest

15r10nk/inline-snapshot holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Security (42/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Frank HoffmannPersonal account
185 followers34 public repossince Nov 2018

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 publish
PyPIinline-snapshot0.35.2-1012 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

87Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 154 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year154
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 98 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count98
latest_release_tag0.35.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases13.9
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?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

62Moderate
How it's scored
46.6/60Stars — 743 stars
11.8/25Forks — 27 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars743
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.935

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
36.1/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
27.8/30PR acceptance — 198/214 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs198
open_issues19
closed_issues117
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.86
closed_unmerged_prs16
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

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.3/25Owner reach — 185 followers of 15r10nk
23.2/25Track record — 34 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers185
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_login15r10nk
public_repos34
account_age_days2,816
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 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 101 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesinline-snapshot
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://15r10nk.github.io/inline-snapshot/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 12 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapproval-testing, golden-master, pytest, python, snapshot-testing, testing, pytest-plugin, snapshot, snapshot-plugin, snapshot-test, snapshot-tests, snapshottest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://15r10nk.github.io/inline-snapshot/
docs_sitehttps://15r10nk.github.io/inline-snapshot/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

42Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

73Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, 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_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,525
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

68Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/inline_snapshot/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/inline_snapshot/py.typed
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

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/inline_snapshot/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/138 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes38,904
source_files_sampled138
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

743GitHub stars
16contributors
154commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
98releases
1bus factor
19open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 23:18 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests10 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained23 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIasttokens>=2.0.5pyproject.toml
PyPIexecuting>=2.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=13.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpytest>=8.3.4pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 69

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 58 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIasttokens—direct
PyPIasttokens3.0.1direct
PyPIexecuting—direct
PyPIexecuting2.2.1direct
PyPIpytest—direct
PyPIpytest8.4.2direct
PyPIpytest9.0.3direct
PyPIrich—direct
PyPIrich15.0.0direct
PyPItomli2.4.1direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.5.0indirect
PyPIattrs—indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIblack25.1.0indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIclick8.4.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcoverage7.10.7indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.1indirect
PyPIcoverage-enable-subprocess—indirect
PyPIcoverage-enable-subprocess1.0indirect
PyPIdirty-equals—indirect
PyPIdirty-equals0.11indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIfreezegun1.5.5indirect
PyPIhypothesis—indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.141.1indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.155.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.7.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort6.1.0indirect
PyPIisort8.0.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.11.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImkdocs—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPImypy1.19.1indirect
PyPImypy2.1.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.10.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.4.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpydantic—indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyright—indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.410indirect
PyPIpytest-freezer—indirect
PyPIpytest-freezer0.4.9indirect
PyPIpytest-mock—indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.23.1indirect
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 15r10nk/inline-snapshot. Read them side by side →

98ansible/moleculeAn ansible-native testing framework for collections, playbooks, and roles with configurable workflows for testing any system or serviceExceptional98pytest-dev/pytestThe pytest framework makes it easy to write small tests, yet scales to support complex functional testingExceptional97schemathesis/schemathesisCatch API bugs before your users doExceptional97tox-dev/toxCommand line driven CI frontend and development task automation tool.Exceptional100astropy/astropyAstronomy and astrophysics core libraryExceptional100python-pillow/PillowPython Imaging Library (fork)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.