Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-28 14:53 UTC

kvas-it / pytest-console-scripts

Pytest plugin for testing console scripts

PythonMIT★ 87 stars⑂ 15 forkssince May 2016View on GitHub ↗

kvas-it/pytest-console-scripts holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (62/100) and lowest on Vitality (24/100). It was last updated 199 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Vasily KuznetsovPersonal account
25 followers66 public repossince Nov 2011@sphericalpm

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-console-scripts1.4.1222,640211154 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

24At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 199 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume — 3 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push199
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 5 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,154 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~127.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tag1.4.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,154
mean_days_between_releases127.4
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.4/60Stars — 87 stars
9.6/25Forks — 15 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars87
watchers4
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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
71.3/80Monthly downloads — 222,640 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespytest-console-scripts
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads222,640
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 62% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.618
How it's scored
36.8/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
29.4/30PR acceptance — 48/49 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs48
open_issues5
closed_issues35
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.875
closed_unmerged_prs1
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 backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.2/25Owner reach — 25 followers of kvas-it
25/25Track record — 66 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginkvas-it
public_repos66
account_age_days5,376
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,154 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespytest-console-scripts
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,154

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

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
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 — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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): branch_protection, 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no 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-console-scripts@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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.6/40Legible commit history — 48 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.48
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — pytest_console_scripts/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspytest_console_scripts/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (pytest_console_scripts/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes15,733
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

87GitHub stars
11contributors
3commits, last 12 months
199days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
5open 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 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
5Releases

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.

03581013151512016-062021-072026-07
Major 0Minor 1Patch 3

Each point covers 10 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 · 2026-07-28 14:53 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
0CI-Tests1 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
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
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpytest>=4.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIimportlib_metadata>=3.6pyproject.toml
All dependencies 2

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIimportlib-metadatadirect
PyPIpytestdirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:pytest-console-scripts@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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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