Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-08 19:35 UTC

jupyterlab / pytest-check-links

pytest plugin that checks URLs

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 18 stars⑂ 19 forkssince Feb 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

jupyterlab/pytest-check-links holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on Vitality (32/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

59
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.

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

Ownership

JupyterLabOrganization
1,596 followers67 public repossince Oct 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIpytest_check_links0.10.143,95127850 days agodocumentationhtmllinkstesting

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

32At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 44 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume1 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share0.66
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 850 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~100.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv0.10.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release850
mean_days_between_releases100.5

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20/60Stars18 stars
10.5/25Forks19 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks19
stars18
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61.9/80Monthly downloads43,951 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespytest_check_links
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads43,951
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.353
How it's scored
23.1/42Issue resolution55% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance115/122 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs115
open_issues9
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.55
closed_unmerged_prs7
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 domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
23/25Owner reach1,596 followers of jupyterlab
25/25Track record67 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,596
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginjupyterlab
public_repos67
account_age_days3,586
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 850 days ago
20/20Version history27 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespytest_check_links
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish850

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspytest, pytest-plugin, jupyter-notebook, markdown, testing
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?

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 19 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
0.8/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
16/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: pytest 8.4.2 (moderate 6.8)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
34.2/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 198 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages41
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the pypi:pytest_check_links@0.10.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 41 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)
40/40Legible commit history52 of 66 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.788
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingpytest_check_links/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance4 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_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspytest_check_links/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (pytest_check_links/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes16,253
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files0
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, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

18GitHub stars
10contributors
1commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
13releases
2bus factor
9open 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 ★ / 19 ⇿
0Stars
19Forks
13Releases

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.

0481216201942017-022021-102026-06
Major 0Minor 6Patch 7

Each point covers 9 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 · 2026-08-08 19:35 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdocutils>=0.20.1pyproject.toml
PyPIhtml5lib>=1.1pyproject.toml
PyPInbconvert>=7.1pyproject.toml
PyPInbformat>=5.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpytest>=7.0,<9pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.22pyproject.toml
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIdocutilsdirect
PyPIhtml5libdirect
PyPInbconvertdirect
PyPInbformatdirect
PyPIpytestdirect
PyPIrequestsdirect
PyPIhatchlingindirect
PyPIrequests-cacheindirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:pytest_check_links@0.10.1 pulls in 41 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pytest8.4.2directmoderate29.0.3

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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