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

wemake-services / flake8-eradicate

Flake8 plugin to find commented out or dead code

PythonMIT★ 314 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Sep 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#flake8#flake8-plugin#code-quality#linter#linter-plugin#comments#wemake-services#wemake-python-styleguide

wemake-services/flake8-eradicate holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (72/100) and lowest on Vitality (21/100). It was last updated 549 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

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)
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

wemake.servicesOrganization
397 followers54 public repossince May 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIflake8-eradicate1.5.0716,577161202 days agoflake8pluginlintingwemake.servicescode-quality

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 549 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 12 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 362 days
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 12 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 362 days
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_share0.12
days_since_last_push549
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

52Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 15 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,455 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~118.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tag1.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,455
mean_days_between_releases118.9
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?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

50Moderate
How it's scored
40.5/60Stars — 314 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars314
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
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)

98Exceptional
How it's scored
78.1/80Monthly downloads — 716,577 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesflake8-eradicate
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads716,577
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 75% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.753

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent
How it's scored
34.5/42Issue resolution — 82% of issues closed
25.5/30PR acceptance — 280/329 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs280
open_issues7
closed_issues32
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.821
closed_unmerged_prs49
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

73Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.7/25Owner reach — 397 followers of wemake-services
24.7/25Track record — 54 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers397
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginwemake-services
public_repos54
account_age_days3,759

Package maintenance

69Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,202 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesflake8-eradicate
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,202

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/flake8-eradicate/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsflake8, flake8-plugin, code-quality, linter, linter-plugin, comments, wemake-services, wemake-python-styleguide
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pypi.org/project/flake8-eradicate/
docs_sitehttps://pypi.org/project/flake8-eradicate/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 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
0/7.5Code-Review — no data
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 20 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
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Code-Review, 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_packages6
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-eradicate@1.5.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

34At Risk · 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)

51Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — setup.cfg ([flake8], [isort])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 88 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_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.88

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes5,054
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

314GitHub stars
14contributors
0commits, last 12 months
549days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
7open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'flake8-eradicate' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for flake8-eradicate carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
15Releases

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.

24681012141422018-092022-082026-08
Major 1Minor 8Patch 6

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 20:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
n/aCode-ReviewFound no human activity in the last 30 changesets
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
0Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIflake8>5pyproject.toml
PyPIeradicate^2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIattrs*pyproject.toml
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIattrs24.3.0direct
PyPIeradicate2.3.0direct
PyPIflake85.0.4direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIauthlib1.3.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.7.4indirect
PyPIcffi1.16.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.1.0indirect
PyPIclick8.1.3indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.2.7indirect
PyPIcryptography43.0.1indirect
PyPIdparse0.6.4indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.1.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.16.1indirect
PyPIidna3.7indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata6.6.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.5indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.3indirect
PyPImarshmallow3.20.2indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImypy1.14.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPIpackaging21.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpsutil6.1.1indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.9.1indirect
PyPIpycparser2.21indirect
PyPIpydantic2.7.4indirect
PyPIpydantic2.9.2indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.18.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.23.4indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.5.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.17.2indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.0.9indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.4indirect
PyPIpytest-cov5.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-randomly3.15.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.0indirect
PyPIrich13.7.0indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml0.17.31indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml-clib0.2.7indirect
PyPIsafety3.2.14indirect
PyPIsafety-schemas0.0.10indirect
PyPIsetuptools70.0.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItyper0.15.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.9.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.2indirect
PyPIzipp3.19.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:flake8-eradicate@1.5.0 pulls in 6 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 wemake-services/flake8-eradicate. Read them side by side →

96wemake-services/wemake-python-styleguideThe strictest and most opinionated python linter ever!Exceptional91editorconfig-checker/editorconfig-checkerA tool to verify that your files are in harmony with your .editorconfigExcellent90eslint-community/eslint-doc-generatorAutomatic documentation generator for ESLint plugins and rules.Excellent90ofri-peretz/eslintSecurity and code-quality ESLint plugins — 477 rules across 30 packages: 272 security rules mapped to CWE + OWASP, 107 quality, 98 React/a11y. ESLint 8.40/9/10 + Oxlint. The lint layer AI-generated code needs.Excellent99astral-sh/ruffAn extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.Exceptional98pylint-dev/pylintIt's not just a linter that annoys you!Exceptional

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.