Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-25 03:44 UTC

inventree / plugin-creator

Command line tool for scaffolding a new InvenTree plugin

Python · TypeScriptMIT★ 13 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Jan 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryPluginhow this is determined

inventree/plugin-creator holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated today. 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

InvenTreeOrganization
281 followers22 public repossince Mar 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIinventree-plugin-creator1.20.16,226340 days agoinventreepluginscaffold

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 114 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year114
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tag1.20.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases18.7
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
17.5/60Stars — 13 stars
5.8/25Forks — 6 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars13
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.6/80Monthly downloads — 6,226 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesinventree-plugin-creator
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads6,226
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.963
How it's scored
32.9/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
29.7/30PR acceptance — 91/92 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs91
open_issues5
closed_issues18
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.783
closed_unmerged_prs1
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.6/25Owner reach — 281 followers of inventree
21.9/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers281
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logininventree
public_repos22
account_age_days3,473

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 34 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesinventree-plugin-creator
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — biome.json, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), setup.cfg ([flake8])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 11 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages10
unassessed_packages9
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 10 resolved dependencies against OSV. 9 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.9/40Legible commit history — 28 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.28
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — biome.json, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), setup.cfg ([flake8])
11/11Static type checking — plugin_creator/template/{{ cookiecutter.plugin_name }}/frontend/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsplugin_creator/template/{{ cookiecutter.plugin_name }}/frontend/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (plugin_creator/template/{{ cookiecutter.plugin_name }}/frontend/tsconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/42 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes11,941
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

13GitHub stars
4contributors
114commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
34releases
1bus factor
5open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:inventree-plugin-creator@1.20.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
28Releases

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.

123456612025-022025-102026-05
Major 0Minor 16Patch 12

Each point covers 2 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 · 2026-09-25 03:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 4/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained11 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
npm@playwright/test^1.60.0playwright/package.json
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 18 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@playwright/test1.60.0direct
npm@biomejs/biome2.0.0indirect
npm@inventreedb/uilatestindirect
npm@lingui/clilatestindirect
npm@lingui/macrolatestindirect
npm@types/reactlatestindirect
npm@types/react-domlatestindirect
npm@vitejs/plugin-react^4.3.4indirect
npmfsevents2.3.2indirect
npmglobals^15.14.0indirect
npmplaywright1.60.0indirect
npmplaywright-core1.60.0indirect
npmtypescript~5.6.2indirect
npmvite^6.0.5indirect
npmvite-plugin-externals^0.6.2indirect
PyPIappdirs—indirect
PyPIcookiecutter—indirect
PyPIlicense—indirect
PyPIquestionary—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 10 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 9 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.

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 statistics — PyPI.