Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 13:44 UTC

str0zzapreti / pytest-retry

A simple plugin for retrying flaky tests in CI environments

PythonMIT★ 41 stars⑂ 10 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

str0zzapreti/pytest-retry holds a health index of 35 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (58/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). It was last updated 545 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

35
overall / 100
Weak

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.

35
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 40 is calibrated to 35 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SilasPersonal account
1 follower7 public repossince Nov 2021

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
PyPIpytest-retry1.7.0-16545 days agorerunpytestflaky

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

25At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 545 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push545
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

60Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 545 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~59.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tag1.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release545
mean_days_between_releases59.7
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

34At Risk
How it's scored
26/60Stars — 41 stars
8/25Forks — 10 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks10
stars41
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

45Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

17Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.944

Issue & PR responsiveness

63Moderate
How it's scored
24.5/42Issue resolution — 58% of issues closed
27.2/30PR acceptance — 29/32 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs29
open_issues10
closed_issues14
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.583
closed_unmerged_prs3
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

35Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of str0zzapreti
16/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginstr0zzapreti
public_repos7
account_age_days1,718
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

79Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 545 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespytest-retry
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish545

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
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 — 0 out of 13 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—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk
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 — 0 out of 13 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
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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.

40Weak · 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)

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — pytest_retry/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_retry/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 (pytest_retry/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes25,354
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

41GitHub stars
5contributors
0commits, last 12 months
545days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
10open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 13:44 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-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpytest>= 7.0.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 8

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpytest—direct
PyPIpytest7.1.2direct
PyPIblack—indirect
PyPIblack22.3.0indirect
PyPIflake84.0.1indirect
PyPIisort5.10.1indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPImypy0.960indirect
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 str0zzapreti/pytest-retry. Read them side by side →

83pytest-dev/pytest-rerunfailuresa pytest plugin that re-runs failed tests up to -n times to eliminate flakey failuresExcellent43box/flakyPlugin for nose or pytest that automatically reruns flaky tests.Weak47potapovDim/protractor-rerunRun your processes in parallel mode with possibility to re-run them on failWeak98rerun-io/rerunVisualize, query, and stream to train on multimodal robotics data.Exceptional97schemathesis/schemathesisCatch API bugs before your users doExceptional95bloomberg/pytest-memraypytest plugin for easy integration of memray memory profilerExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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