Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 02:56 UTC

aklajnert / pytest-subprocess

Pytest plugin to fake subprocess.

PythonMIT★ 117 stars⑂ 17 forkssince Nov 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

aklajnert/pytest-subprocess holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (51/100). It was last updated 55 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

Andrzej KlajnertPersonal account
11 followers42 public repossince Apr 2016Akamai Technologies

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
PyPIpytest-subprocess1.6.0486,7682471 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

56Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 55 days ago
9/36Commit cadence13/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18Commit volume24 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year24
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push55
active_weeks_last_year13
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases23 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 121 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~177.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count23
latest_release_tag1.5.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release121
mean_days_between_releases177.9

Community & Adoption

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

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
33.5/60Stars117 stars
10/25Forks17 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars117
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
75.8/80Monthly downloads486,768 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespytest-subprocess
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads486,768
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 74% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth12 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.737
How it's scored
41.2/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance154/159 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs154
open_issues1
closed_issues48
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.98
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
7.8/25Owner reach11 followers of aklajnert
23.9/25Track record42 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginaklajnert
public_repos42
account_age_days3,758
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 71 days ago
20/20Version history24 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespytest-subprocess
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish71

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests16 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspytest, pytest-plugin, subprocess, python3, python
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests16 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.1

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_packages5
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:pytest-subprocess@1.6.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 5 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.

51Moderate · 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
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile, noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingpytest_subprocess/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
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_filesdocs/Makefile, noxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspytest_subprocess/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.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (pytest_subprocess/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes48,836
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

117GitHub stars
12contributors
24commits, last 12 months
55days since last push
23releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 02:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests16 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained6 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 13 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIanyioindirect
PyPIchangelogdindirect
PyPIdocutilsindirect
PyPIfuroindirect
PyPInoxindirect
PyPIpygmentsindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-asyncioindirect
PyPIpytest-rerunfailuresindirect
PyPIpytest-timeoutindirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinx-autodoc-typehintsindirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-napoleonindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pytest-subprocess@1.6.0 pulls in 5 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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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