Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 13:42 UTC

FactoryBoy / factory_boy

A test fixtures replacement for Python

PythonMIT★ 3,805 stars⑂ 420 forkssince May 2011View on GitHub ↗

FactoryBoy/factory_boy holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (90/100) and lowest on Vitality (20/100). It was last updated 237 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
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.

54
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FactoryBoy projectOrganization
19 followers2 public repossince Jul 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIfactory_boy3.3.323,359,14146570 days agofactory-boyfactoryfixtures

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

20At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 237 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push237
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases45 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 570 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~232.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count45
latest_release_tag3.3.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release570
mean_days_between_releases232.8
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?

90Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
58.1/60Stars3,805 stars
21.9/25Forks420 forks
8.6/15Watchers36 watchers
Inputs used
forks420
stars3,805
watchers36
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads23,359,141 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfactory_boy
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads23,359,141
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 58% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.583
How it's scored
30.8/42Issue resolution73% of issues closed
20/30PR acceptance334/501 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs334
open_issues162
closed_issues446
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.734
closed_unmerged_prs167
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.4/25Owner reach19 followers of FactoryBoy
15.5/25Track record2 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers19
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginFactoryBoy
public_repos2
account_age_days3,701
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 570 days ago
20/20Version history46 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfactory_boy
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish570

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configsetup.cfg ([flake8], [isort]), tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://factoryboy.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest, django, sqlalchemy, python, testing, fixtures
has_wikino
homepagehttps://factoryboy.readthedocs.io/
docs_sitehttps://factoryboy.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.2/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 45 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
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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_packages1
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:factory_boy@3.3.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
15.2/40Legible commit history28 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.286
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, docs/Makefile, examples/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configsetup.cfg ([flake8], [isort]), tox.ini
11/11Static type checkingfactory/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, docs/Makefile, examples/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsfactory/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (factory/py.typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes1/61 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes94,980
source_files_sampled61
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

3,805GitHub stars
99contributors
1commits, last 12 months
237days since last push
45releases
1bus factor
162open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 420 ⇿
0Stars
420Forks
45Releases

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.

010020030040050041162011-072019-022026-08
Major 2Minor 18Patch 25

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 13:41 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
1CI-Tests1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIFaker>=0.7.0setup.cfg
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdjangoindirect
PyPIflaskindirect
PyPIflask-sqlalchemyindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:factory_boy@3.3.3 pulls in 1 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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