Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-16 09:52 UTC

adamtheturtle / requests-mock-flask

Send HTTP requests to a Flask test application

PythonMIT★ 9 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2020View on GitHub ↗

adamtheturtle/requests-mock-flask holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (31/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Adam DangoorPersonal account

75 followers84 public repossince May 2011

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	requests-mock-flask	2026.8.16	-	21	0 days ago	flask mock requests

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36	Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 930 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	930
human_commit_share	0.42
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	52

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 23 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~140 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	23
latest_release_tag	2026.08.16
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	140

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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

15Critical

How it's scored

14.6/60	Stars — 9 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	9
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

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

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)

20At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.5/30	PR acceptance — 1,709/1,864 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	1,709
open_issues	0
closed_issues	50
prs_merged_7d	3
prs_decided_7d	3
prs_merged_30d	31
prs_decided_30d	32
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	155
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

61Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.5/25	Owner reach — 75 followers of adamtheturtle
25/25	Track record — 84 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	75
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	adamtheturtle
public_repos	84
account_age_days	5,568

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

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 — 21 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	requests-mock-flask
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://adamtheturtle.github.io/requests-mock-flask/
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://adamtheturtle.github.io/requests-mock-flask/
docs_site	https://adamtheturtle.github.io/requests-mock-flask/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — 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 24 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 — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	46
unassessed_packages	7
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 46 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 39 of 42 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.929
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — src/requests_mock_flask/py.typed
0/10	Reproducible environment
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 25 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 28 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/requests_mock_flask/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.25
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.28

Code legibility for models

74Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/requests_mock_flask/py.typed)
47.1/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/7 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	81,433
source_files_sampled	7
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

9GitHub stars

1contributors

930commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

23releases

1bus factor

0open 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:requests-mock-flask@2026.8.16; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10

5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-16 09:51 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
1	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 24 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
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	httpretty	`>=1.1.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx	`>=0.27.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests-mock	`>=1.12.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	responses	`>=0.25.3,!=0.25.5`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	respx	`>=0.22.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`>=2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	werkzeug	`>=2.3`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 53

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	httpretty	`—`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	direct
PyPI	requests-mock	`—`	direct
PyPI	responses	`—`	direct
PyPI	respx	`—`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`—`	direct
PyPI	werkzeug	`—`	direct
PyPI	actionlint-py	`1.7.12.24`	indirect
PyPI	beartype	`0.22.9`	indirect
PyPI	check-manifest	`0.51`	indirect
PyPI	check-wheel-contents	`0.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	deptry	`0.25.1`	indirect
PyPI	doc8	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	doccmd	`2026.8.16`	indirect
PyPI	flask	`3.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	furo	`2025.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	interrogate	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-strict-kwargs	`2026.7.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	no-defaults	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	prek	`0.4.13`	indirect
PyPI	pydocstringformatter	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pylint	`4.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	pylint-per-file-ignores	`3.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-fmt	`2.27.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyrefly	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.411`	indirect
PyPI	pyroma	`5.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-beartype-tests	`2026.8.16`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.2`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools-scm	`—`	indirect
PyPI	shellcheck-py	`0.11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	shfmt-py	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`9.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-copybutton	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-lint	`1.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-pyproject	`0.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-substitution-extensions	`2026.8.5`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-spelling	`8.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-towncrier	`0.5.0a0`	indirect
PyPI	strict-kwargs	`2026.7.24`	indirect
PyPI	sybil	`10.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	towncrier	`25.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	ty	`0.0.70`	indirect
PyPI	types-httpretty	`1.1.4.20260720.post2`	indirect
PyPI	types-requests	`2.33.0.20260712`	indirect
PyPI	vale	`3.13.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	vulture	`2.16`	indirect
PyPI	yamlfix	`1.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	zizmor	`1.29.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 46 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

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 v0.31.0 — 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