Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 21:58 UTC

litestar-org / polyfactory

Simple and powerful factories for mock data generation

PythonMIT★ 1,504 stars⑂ 120 forkssince Nov 2021View on GitHub ↗

#pydantic #python #dataclasses #starlite #hacktoberfest #typeddict #litestar #pydantic-factories #polyfactory #beanie #msgspec #odmantic

litestar-org/polyfactory holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Security (71/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Exceptional

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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LitestarOrganization · verified domain

404 followers51 public repossince Jan 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	polyfactory	3.3.0	10,440,215	52	200 days ago	attrs dataclasses msgspec pydantic sqlalchemy

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

68Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 16 days ago
14.5/36	Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
16.6/18	Commit volume — 70 commits in the last year
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

commits_last_year	70
human_commit_share	0.63
days_since_last_push	16
active_weeks_last_year	21

Release discipline

78Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 51 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 200 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~26.2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	51
latest_release_tag	v3.3.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	200
mean_days_between_releases	26.2

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?

87Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

74Good

How it's scored

51.5/60	Stars — 1,504 stars
17.3/25	Forks — 120 forks
5/15	Watchers — 9 watchers

Inputs used

forks	120
stars	1,504
watchers	9
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	23
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 10,440,215 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	polyfactory
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	10,440,215
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?

77Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

64Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 73 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	73
top_contributor_share	0.315

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good

How it's scored

34.1/42	Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
25.1/30	PR acceptance — 438/524 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	438
open_issues	54
closed_issues	233
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.812
closed_unmerged_prs	86
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
18.7/25	Owner reach — 404 followers of litestar-org
21.8/25	Track record — 51 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	404
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	litestar-org
public_repos	51
account_age_days	1,708

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 200 days ago
20/20	Version history — 52 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	polyfactory
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	200

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 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
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://polyfactory.litestar.dev/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 12 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	pydantic, python, dataclasses, starlite, hacktoberfest, typeddict, litestar, pydantic-factories, polyfactory, beanie, msgspec, odmantic
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://polyfactory.litestar.dev/
docs_site	https://polyfactory.litestar.dev/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

64Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 9/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
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
6/7.5	Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 16 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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	2
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:polyfactory@3.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 63 of 63 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

82Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — polyfactory/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 29 of the last 100 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	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	polyfactory/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.29

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (polyfactory/py.typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/158 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	55,384
source_files_sampled	158
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

1,504GitHub stars

73contributors

70commits, last 12 months

16days since last push

51releases

2bus factor

54open 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 ★ / 120 ⇿

0Stars

120Forks

51Releases

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 2Minor 25Patch 22

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10

6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 21:57 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
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6	Code-Review	Found 9/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
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
8	Maintained	10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	16 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	faker	`>=5.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typing-extensions	`>=4.6.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 139

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 136 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	faker	`37.12.0`	direct
PyPI	faker	`38.2.0`	direct
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	direct
PyPI	aiosqlite	`0.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`0.7.16`	indirect
PyPI	alabaster	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	apeye	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	apeye-core	`1.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`25.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	auto-pytabs	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	autodocsumm	`0.2.14`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-asyncio-runner	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	beanie	`1.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	cachecontrol	`0.14.3`	indirect
PyPI	cachecontrol	`0.14.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2025.11.12`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	codespell	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	cssutils	`2.11.1`	indirect
PyPI	dict2css	`0.3.0.post1`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.21.2`	indirect
PyPI	domdf-python-tools	`3.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	email-validator	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	eval-type-backport	`0.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	git-cliff	`2.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.2.4`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	html5lib	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	hypothesis	`6.141.1`	indirect
PyPI	hypothesis	`6.148.1`	indirect
PyPI	hypothesis	`6.148.2`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.11`	indirect
PyPI	imagesize	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	lazy-model	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	litestar-sphinx-theme	`0.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mongomock	`4.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	mongomock-motor	`0.0.36`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	motor	`3.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	msgpack	`1.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	msgspec	`0.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`1.18.2`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	natsort	`8.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	odmantic	`0.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	polyfactory	`3.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	prek	`0.2.19`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.12.4`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.41.5`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	pygments-styles	`0.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymongo	`4.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyright	`1.1.407`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2025.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	indirect
PyPI	roman-numerals-py	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruamel-yaml	`0.18.16`	indirect
PyPI	ruamel-yaml-clib	`0.2.15`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.14.6`	indirect
PyPI	sentinels	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`80.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellcheck-py	`0.11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	shibuya	`2025.10.21`	indirect
PyPI	shibuya	`2025.11.10`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	snowballstemmer	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sortedcontainers	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`7.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.1.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autobuild	`2024.10.3`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autobuild	`2025.8.25`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autodoc-typehints	`3.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-copybutton	`0.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-design	`0.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-jinja2-compat	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-paramlinks	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-prompt	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-prompt	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-tabs	`3.4.5`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-togglebutton	`0.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-toolbox	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-applehelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-devhelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-jsmath	`1.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-mermaid	`1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-qthelp	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.0.44`	indirect
PyPI	standard-imghdr	`3.10.14`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`0.49.3`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`0.50.0`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2025.2`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.38.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchfiles	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	webencodings	`0.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`15.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`0.46.2`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:polyfactory@3.3.0 pulls in 2 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