Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 20:52 UTC

m-burst / flake8-pytest-style

A flake8 plugin checking common style issues or inconsistencies with pytest-based tests.

PythonMIT★ 242 stars⑂ 20 forkssince May 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#flake8#python3#pytest#flake8-extensions#flake8-plugin#flake8-plugins

m-burst/flake8-pytest-style holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mikhail BurshteynPersonal account
39 followers10 public repossince Jan 2013

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 publishTags
PyPIflake8-pytest-style2.2.0129,50332329 days agoflake8pytest

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

54Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

56Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
7.5/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 16 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 91 days
6.2/18Commit volume — 53 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 16 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 91 days
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year53
human_commit_share0.16
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

50Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 32 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 329 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~176.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tagv2.2.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release329
mean_days_between_releases176.2
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

49Weak
How it's scored
38.6/60Stars — 242 stars
10.7/25Forks — 20 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks20
stars242
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges7
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

85Excellent
How it's scored
68.2/80Monthly downloads — 129,503 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesflake8-pytest-style
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads129,503
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.934

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
26.1/42Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance — 267/323 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_prs267
open_issues31
closed_issues51
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.622
closed_unmerged_prs56
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.

Ownership & stewardship

51Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.5/25Owner reach — 39 followers of m-burst
19.6/25Track record — 10 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers39
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginm-burst
public_repos10
account_age_days4,994
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 329 days ago
20/20Version history — 32 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesflake8-pytest-style
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish329

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — setup.cfg ([flake8], [pylint], [isort])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/flake8-pytest-style
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsflake8, python3, pytest, flake8-extensions, flake8-plugin, flake8-plugins
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/flake8-pytest-style
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

57Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
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_packages1
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:flake8-pytest-style@2.2.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — setup.cfg ([flake8], [pylint], [isort])
11/11Static type checking — flake8_pytest_style/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 84 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsflake8_pytest_style/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.84

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (flake8_pytest_style/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/53 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes9,986
source_files_sampled53
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

242GitHub stars
10contributors
53commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
31open 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 ★ / 20 ⇿
0Stars
20Forks
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.

0481216202012020-022023-052026-09
Major 2Minor 14Patch 12

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 20:51 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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIflake8-plugin-utils^1.3.2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 52

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIflake8-plugin-utils1.3.3direct
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIastroid4.0.2indirect
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIbandit1.8.6indirect
PyPIblack26.5.1indirect
PyPIbump2version1.0.1indirect
PyPIclick8.3.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.11.0indirect
PyPIdill0.4.0indirect
PyPIeradicate2.3.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIflake8-bandit4.1.1indirect
PyPIflake8-breakpoint1.1.0indirect
PyPIflake8-bugbear26.9.9indirect
PyPIflake8-builtins3.1.0indirect
PyPIflake8-comprehensions3.17.0indirect
PyPIflake8-eradicate1.5.0indirect
PyPIflake8-if-expr1.0.4indirect
PyPIflake8-isort7.0.0indirect
PyPIflake8-print5.0.0indirect
PyPIflake8-requirements2.3.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIisort6.1.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.3indirect
PyPIpep8-naming0.15.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpylint4.0.8indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-deadfixtures3.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.15.1indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrich14.2.0indirect
PyPIstevedore5.5.0indirect
PyPItomli2.3.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:flake8-pytest-style@2.2.0 pulls in 1 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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with m-burst/flake8-pytest-style. Read them side by side →

80jsh9/pydoclintA very fast Python docstring linterExcellent96wemake-services/wemake-python-styleguideThe strictest and most opinionated python linter ever!Exceptional99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional93pytest-dev/pytest-djangoA Django plugin for pytest.Exceptional91wemake-services/django-test-migrationsTest django schema and data migrations, including migrations' order and best practices.Excellent88MatthewMckee4/karvaA Python test framework, written in Rust.Excellent

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.