Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 00:43 UTC

pytest-dev / pytest-randomly

:game_die: Pytest plugin to randomly order tests and control random.seed

PythonMIT★ 714 stars⑂ 36 forkssince Apr 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#pytest

pytest-dev/pytest-randomly holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

pytest-devOrganization
796 followers78 public repossince Sep 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIpytest-randomly4.1.0-3787 days agopytestrandomrandomiserandomizerandomly

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

75Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
15.2/18Commit volume — 48 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year48
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year20

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 37 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 87 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~178 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count37
latest_release_tag4.1.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release87
mean_days_between_releases178
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

59Moderate
How it's scored
46.3/60Stars — 714 stars
12.9/25Forks — 36 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks36
stars714
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

65Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

74Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 77% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.767

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
37.6/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 625/653 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs625
open_issues8
closed_issues68
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.895
closed_unmerged_prs28
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.

Ownership & stewardship

95Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
20.9/25Owner reach — 796 followers of pytest-dev
25/25Track record — 78 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers796
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginpytest-dev
public_repos78
account_age_days4,313
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 87 days ago
20/20Version history — 37 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespytest-randomly
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish87

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspytest
has_wikino
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?

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

62Moderate
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 — 29 out of 29 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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)

78Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — src/pytest_randomly/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/pytest_randomly/py.typed
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (src/pytest_randomly/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes19,865
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

714GitHub stars
17contributors
48commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
37releases
1bus factor
8open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 00:43 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-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained10 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpytest—pyproject.toml
All dependencies 23

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpytest9.0.3direct
PyPIasgiref3.11.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIcoverage7.14.0indirect
PyPIdjango5.2.14indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIfactory-boy3.3.3indirect
PyPIfaker40.15.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImodel-bakery1.23.4indirect
PyPInumpy2.2.6indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly4.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.5indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItzdata2026.2indirect
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 pytest-dev/pytest-randomly. Read them side by side →

73pytest-dev/pytest-random-orderpytest plugin to randomise the order of tests with some control over the randomnessGood34blakeembrey/change-caseConvert strings between camelCase, PascalCase, Capital Case, snake_case and moreAt Risk29antonioribeiro/randomGenerate random strings or numeric valuesAt Risk97schemathesis/schemathesisCatch API bugs before your users doExceptional95bloomberg/pytest-memraypytest plugin for easy integration of memray memory profilerExceptional94Jebel-Quant/rhizaA collection of reusable configuration templates for modern Python projectsExceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.