Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 21:24 UTC

dev-petrov / pytest-lazy-fixtures

Allows you to use fixtures in @pytest.mark.parametrize.

PythonMIT★ 113 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Mar 2023View on GitHub ↗

dev-petrov/pytest-lazy-fixtures holds a health index of 12 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (68/100) and lowest on Security (27/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Critical

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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Anton PetrovPersonal account

4 followers15 public repossince Sep 2018BI.ZONE

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	pytest-lazy-fixtures	1.4.1	2,113,666	21	15 days ago	fixture lazy pytest tests

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

39Weak

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 15 days ago
2.1/36	Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
7/18	Commit volume — 5 commits in the last year
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

commits_last_year	5
human_commit_share	0.848
days_since_last_push	15
active_weeks_last_year	3

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 15 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~49.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	21
latest_release_tag	1.4.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	15
mean_days_between_releases	49.3

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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

42Weak

How it's scored

33.2/60	Stars — 113 stars
7.5/25	Forks — 9 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	9
stars	113
watchers	3
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	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 2,113,666 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	pytest-lazy-fixtures
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,113,666
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

26At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
9.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	7
top_contributor_share	0.821

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent

How it's scored

38.2/42	Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
28.2/30	PR acceptance — 32/34 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	32
open_issues	2
closed_issues	20
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.909
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

45Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5/25	Owner reach — 4 followers of dev-petrov
20.8/25	Track record — 15 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	4
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	dev-petrov
public_repos	15
account_age_days	2,903

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 15 days ago
20/20	Version history — 21 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	pytest-lazy-fixtures
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	15

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
6/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

27At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

9Critical

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 software.redFlag.role.ownerRussia1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 8 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
0.8/7.5	Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5	Packaging — no data
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
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.6
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	20
security_posture_after_multiplier	9
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	47

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	5
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:pytest-lazy-fixtures@1.4.1 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

30At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
30.1/40	Legible commit history — 22 of 39 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.564
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — pytest_lazy_fixtures/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 46
8/8	Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 46 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	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Taskfile.yml
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	pytest_lazy_fixtures/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.152

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pytest_lazy_fixtures/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/16 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	9,792
source_files_sampled	16
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

113GitHub stars

7contributors

5commits, last 12 months

15days since last push

21releases

1bus factor

2open 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 ★ / 9 ⇿

0Stars

9Forks

14Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 4Patch 10

Each point covers 3 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 21:24 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
3	CI-Tests	8 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
1	Maintained	2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not 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
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
1	Vulnerabilities	9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	pytest	`>=7`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 39 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	pytest	`8.3.1`	direct
PyPI	cfgv	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	deptry	`0.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	deptry	`0.23.1`	indirect
PyPI	deptry	`0.25.1`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.3.8`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.13.1`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`1.27.0`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.5.35`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.20.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-deadfixtures	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-fixture-classes	`1.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-lazy-fixtures	`0.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	requirements-parser	`0.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.12.12`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`69.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	trove-classifiers	`2025.5.9.12`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`20.25.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pytest-lazy-fixtures@1.4.1 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.

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 statistics — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records