Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 21:15 UTC

syrupy-project / syrupy

:pancakes: The most popular pytest snapshot plugin

PythonMIT★ 881 stars⑂ 60 forkssince Oct 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

syrupy-project/syrupy holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (67/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

93
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.

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

Ownership

SyrupyOrganization
2 followers1 public reposince Aug 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIsyrupy6.0.012,601,07413019 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 215 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year215
human_commit_share0.24
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year35

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 19 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~9.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv6.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release19
mean_days_between_releases9.2
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?

84Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.8/60Stars — 881 stars
14.8/25Forks — 60 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks60
stars881
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges9
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 12,601,074 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessyrupy
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads12,601,074
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 29% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 47 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled47
top_contributor_share0.293
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance — 929/1,033 decided PRs merged
5.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs929
open_issues6
closed_issues186
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d17
issue_closed_ratio0.969
closed_unmerged_prs104
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of syrupy-project
6.3/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginsyrupy-project
public_repos1
account_age_days751

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 19 days ago
20/20Version history — 130 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessyrupy
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://syrupy-project.github.io/syrupy/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, pytest, pytest-plugin, snapshot-testing, testing, snapshot, snapshot-tests, snapshot-plugin, snapshottest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://syrupy-project.github.io/syrupy/
docs_sitehttps://syrupy-project.github.io/syrupy/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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 — 30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
4/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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:syrupy@6.0.0 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 24 of 24 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — mypy.ini, src/syrupy/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 64 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, src/syrupy/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.64
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (mypy.ini, src/syrupy/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/104 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes26,052
source_files_sampled104
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

881GitHub stars
47contributors
215commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
6open 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 ★ / 60 ⇿
0Stars
60Forks
100Releases

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.

01020304050606042020-042023-062026-09
Major 6Minor 30Patch 64

Each point covers 6 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 21:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
8SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIpytest(>= 8.0.0)pyproject.toml
All dependencies 32

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 31 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpytest9.1.1direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIconfigparser7.2.0indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIdebugpy1.8.21indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIhypothesis6.167.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIinvoke3.0.3indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImypy2.3.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpy-cpuinfo210.1.1indirect
PyPIpy-githooks1.1.1indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest-benchmark5.3.0indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.6indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPIsyrupy6.0.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:syrupy@6.0.0 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

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.

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.