riskratchet 0.2.2

A maintainability ratchet for AI-assisted Python.

riskratchet

A maintainability ratchet for AI-assisted Python.

PyPI · Source · Post

riskratchet computes a function-level risk score from coverage gaps, cyclomatic complexity, churn, public surface, and sprawl signals. Snapshot the current state as a baseline, then fail CI or block the commit whenever risk grows. The bar can only move down, never up.

The review workflow is directly inspired by two practical review surfaces: cargo-crap, a Rust tool that made the CRAP metric practical in CI with threshold gates, baseline deltas, GitHub annotations, sticky PR comments, suppressions, missing-coverage policies, and schema-backed JSON; and Cursor's thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review agent prompt, especially its emphasis on maintainability, structure, unjustified file sprawl, ad-hoc branching growth, explicit boundaries, and reviewing only what the diff shows. riskratchet is not a Python port of cargo-crap or an agent prompt: it keeps CRAP as a reported metric, then adds Python-specific signals such as branch gaps, churn, public surface, and file/function sprawl.

Use cases

Four real scenarios for how riskratchet earns its keep.

1. Solo dev with an AI agent on a year-old side project

You've been vibe-coding a FastAPI backend with an AI agent for eight months. It works, tests are green-ish (62% coverage), but you just noticed that services/billing.py::reconcile_subscriptions quietly grew to 180 lines and an 11-way match statement you don't remember writing.

pip install riskratchet
pytest --cov --cov-branch --cov-report=json:coverage.json
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --top 10

reconcile_subscriptions shows up at score 71 (high) with structural_complexity: 90, sprawl: 55, coverage_gap: 60. You also spot a surprise: a 12-line public utility _normalize_plan_id scoring 48 because it has zero tests. Snapshot the bar:

riskratchet baseline src --coverage coverage.json --output .riskratchet.json
git add .riskratchet.json && git commit -m "Add riskratchet baseline"

From here, every time the agent adds a webhook handler or "refactors the billing flow," run riskratchet check before committing. If it quietly bloated reconcile_subscriptions from 180 to 220 lines, the check exits 1 and names the regression. You stop having to remember to look.

Why this is the canonical use case: AI agents are excellent at adding code, mediocre at noticing they've made things worse. The baseline is your memory.

2. Team gating PRs in CI

Five engineers maintain an internal Python SDK that 30 other services consume. Coverage is 87%, reviews are decent, but PRs occasionally land functions with CC > 25 because reviewers don't catch it. One-time setup on main:

pytest --cov --cov-branch --cov-report=json:coverage.json
riskratchet baseline src --coverage coverage.json --output .riskratchet.json
git add .riskratchet.json

In GitHub Actions, on every PR:

- run: pytest --cov --cov-branch --cov-report=json:coverage.json
- run: |
    riskratchet check src \
      --coverage coverage.json \
      --baseline .riskratchet.json \
      --format pr-comment > regressions.md
    status=$?
    if [ $status -eq 1 ]; then
      gh pr comment ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} --body-file regressions.md
      exit 1
    fi

Tune pyproject.toml to reflect priorities — this SDK changes constantly by design, so churn matters less than public surface:

[tool.riskratchet.weights]
churn = 0.0
public_surface = 0.20

The pr-comment format starts with <!-- riskratchet-report -->, so the bot updates the same comment on each push instead of spamming. check --format pr-comment uses the richer diff body, so reviewers see failing regressions plus collapsed improvements, moves, removals, and unchanged functions in one comment while the command still exits 1 only for configured failing regressions.

Why this works for teams: the ratchet is mechanical and unowned. Nobody has to be "the complexity cop" in code review.

3. Pre-commit hook for a solo repo with no CI

A data scientist has a pipelines/ repo. No CI, no PR review — just one person pushing to main. They want a local guardrail before each commit. Using Pattern A from the Pre-commit integration section:

repos:
  - repo: local
    hooks:
      - id: pytest-cov
        entry: pytest --cov --cov-branch --cov-report=json:coverage.json -q
        language: system
        pass_filenames: false
        always_run: true
  - repo: https://github.com/KayhanB21/riskratchet
    rev: v0.2.0
    hooks:
      - id: riskratchet
        args: ["pipelines", "--coverage", "coverage.json", "--baseline", ".riskratchet.json"]

After the initial riskratchet baseline pipelines …, every git commit regenerates coverage and gates the commit on no regressions. If they try to commit a 90-line transform with no tests, the commit fails with a list of regressed functions. They can use --allow "pipelines.experiments.*" to scope out an experimental folder where rough code is intentional.

Why this matters here: without a team, there's no second pair of eyes. The hook is the review.

4. Investigating one ugly function with explain and diff

An engineer is assigned the dreaded inflect.engine._plnoun (CC=100, from the Sample output section below). They want to know why riskratchet flagged it and whether their planned refactor actually helps.

riskratchet explain src --coverage coverage.json --qualname "engine._plnoun"

This dumps the six component scores, the CRAP value, line numbers, and what's driving the risk — e.g. structural_complexity: 100, sprawl: 78, coverage_gap: 2. Now they know the problem isn't tests; it's the function shape.

They branch, spend two days breaking _plnoun into seven smaller functions, then before opening the PR:

riskratchet diff src --coverage coverage.json --baseline .riskratchet.json --json \
  | jq '.improved[], .regressed[]'

diff shows improvements as well as regressions. _plnoun dropped from 36.2 → 18.4, and the seven new helpers all score under 20. They paste that into the PR description as evidence that the refactor was net-positive — not just rearranging deck chairs.

Why this scenario matters: scan tells you what's risky, explain tells you why, diff tells you whether your change helped.

---

Why CRAP alone is useful but incomplete

The classic CRAP score (CC^2 * (1 - line_coverage)^3 + CC) is great at catching one specific shape of bad code: complex and poorly tested. That's a real problem, but it misses several others that ship to production just as often:

• A function with low complexity that has zero tests because no one wrote any. CRAP gives it CC (a single digit). Risk is real but not visible.
• A function with no missing line coverage but every branch covered the same way. CRAP only looks at line coverage.
• A function in a 2,000-line module that everyone is afraid to touch. Sprawl is invisible to CRAP.
• A function that changed in 40 of the last 90 commits. Churn is invisible to CRAP.

riskratchet keeps CRAP as a reported metric (it's still useful as a single-number signal) and computes its own composite score from six weighted components so those other risks show up too.

The practical inspiration here is cargo-crap's treatment of CRAP as a CI and review signal instead of a static dashboard number. riskratchet borrows that operational shape for Python while widening the risk model beyond CRAP alone.

Why AI-assisted workflows need a ratchet

AI coding agents are very good at producing code that compiles, runs, and passes the tests it ships with. They are less good at:

• writing meaningful tests for the new code
• noticing when a 30-line function quietly became 130 lines
• catching that the public API now exposes a function with no callers in the tests
• realising that a small refactor turned an if ladder into a 14-way cyclomatic monster

A traditional review catches some of this. A ratchet catches all of it, mechanically, every time. It pairs well with AI-assisted work because it turns "did this change introduce risk?" into a yes/no question with a diffable baseline.

Quickstart

# install
pip install riskratchet
# or run directly without installing
uvx riskratchet --help

# 1. run your tests with coverage in JSON form
pytest --cov --cov-report=json:coverage.json

# 2. snapshot the current risk profile
riskratchet baseline src --coverage coverage.json --output .riskratchet.json

# 3. inspect what was captured
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json

# 4. fail the build when risk regresses
riskratchet check src --coverage coverage.json --baseline .riskratchet.json

riskratchet check exits with code 1 when any regression is detected, exit 2 for usage errors (e.g. missing baseline), and 0 otherwise.

Pre-commit integration

How pre-commit and riskratchet fit together

Two things about pre-commit matter for riskratchet:

1. Pre-commit hides your unstaged edits before running hooks. It "stashes" anything you've edited but not git add-ed, so hooks only see the code you're actually about to commit. Useful in general, but it means riskratchet sees a different source tree than the one open in your editor.
2. Each language: python hook runs in its own isolated virtualenv. That venv contains riskratchet and its declared dependencies — not your project's pytest, your application code, your fixtures, or your test plugins. So riskratchet can't simply "run your tests" from inside the hook environment; pytest there would fail to import your package.

Together these create one requirement: the coverage.json riskratchet reads must reflect the same stashed source tree it's analyzing. If you reuse an old coverage.json from before pre-commit stashed your edits, the source and coverage drift out of sync — you may see phantom "uncovered" lines for code that no longer exists, or score functions against the wrong line ranges.

That's why the published hook ships with --no-auto-cov --allow-missing-coverage by default: it's safe but limited, and assumes you'll wire coverage in yourself. Pick one of the two patterns below to make it actually useful.

Pattern A: pre-generate coverage in a separate hook (recommended)

Add a sibling hook that runs pytest --cov inside the same pre-commit chain. Because that hook runs after pre-commit has already stashed unstaged edits, the coverage it produces matches the stashed source tree exactly — riskratchet then reads a consistent picture.

repos:
  - repo: local
    hooks:
      - id: pytest-cov
        name: pytest --cov (produces coverage.json for riskratchet)
        entry: pytest --cov --cov-branch --cov-report=json:coverage.json -q
        language: system
        pass_filenames: false
        always_run: true

  - repo: https://github.com/KayhanB21/riskratchet
    rev: v0.2.0
    hooks:
      - id: riskratchet
        args:
          - "src"
          - "--coverage"
          - "coverage.json"
          - "--baseline"
          - ".riskratchet.json"

riskratchet uses the freshly produced coverage.json directly, no auto-cov needed. The pytest-cov hook also catches test failures early.

Variant: uv / poetry projects (all language: system)

If your project uses uv (or poetry) and you'd rather not have pre-commit manage a parallel venv at all, declare both hooks as language: system so they run inside your project's environment. This is also what riskratchet itself runs against its own source tree (see this repo's .pre-commit-config.yaml):

repos:
  - repo: local
    hooks:
      - id: pytest-cov
        name: pytest --cov (produces coverage.json for riskratchet)
        entry: uv run pytest --cov --cov-branch --cov-report=json:coverage.json -q
        language: system
        pass_filenames: false
        always_run: true

      - id: riskratchet
        name: riskratchet check (gate on baseline regressions)
        entry: uv run riskratchet check src --coverage coverage.json --baseline .riskratchet.json --no-auto-cov
        language: system
        pass_filenames: false
        always_run: true

Two upsides over the published-hook form: a single environment for both hooks (no isolated-venv surprises), and uv run resolves the same Python and deps uv sync set up. The downside is that contributors must have uv installed locally; for repos with non-uv contributors, the published form above is more portable.

Pattern B: let riskratchet run pytest itself

To escape the isolated venv, override the hook to language: system so it inherits your shell PATH (and finds your real pytest, your project, and its deps):

repos:
  - repo: local
    hooks:
      - id: riskratchet
        entry: riskratchet check src --baseline .riskratchet.json
        language: system
        pass_filenames: false
        always_run: true

riskratchet will run the configured [tool.riskratchet] test_command (default pytest --cov --cov-branch --cov-report=json:{output} -q) and cache the result under .riskratchet/coverage.json. The cache is reused until any .py file under the scan paths is newer.

For local development outside pre-commit, the auto-coverage default applies to plain riskratchet scan|baseline|check invocations as well; pass --no-auto-cov to opt out.

Using riskratchet from an AI coding agent

riskratchet is designed to be called from agents and parsed without screen-scraping. See AGENTS.md for the full operational contract; the recipes below cover the common cases.

One-shot: list the top three highest-risk functions.

riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --json \
  | jq '.functions[:3] | .[] | {qualname, score, severity}'

Show the full baseline diff, including improvements and removed functions.

riskratchet diff src --coverage coverage.json \
  --baseline .riskratchet.json --json

Gate a CI job on regressions, printing the list when it fails.

riskratchet check src \
  --coverage coverage.json \
  --baseline .riskratchet.json \
  --baseline-format riskratchet \
  --json > regressions.json
status=$?
if [ "$status" -eq 1 ]; then
  jq -r '.regressions[] | "- \(.qualname): \(.reason)"' regressions.json
  exit 1
fi
exit "$status"

Post regressions as a PR comment.

riskratchet check src --coverage coverage.json \
  --baseline .riskratchet.json --format markdown \
  | gh pr comment --body-file -

For a sticky PR-bot body, use --format pr-comment. The output starts with <!-- riskratchet-report --> so a GitHub Actions script can update an existing comment instead of posting duplicates. For inline workflow warnings, use --format github.

Markdown and PR-comment output can link each row back to source:

riskratchet scan src --format pr-comment \
  --repo-url https://github.com/acme/project \
  --commit-ref "$GITHUB_SHA"

In GitHub Actions, riskratchet fills those values from GITHUB_SERVER_URL, GITHUB_REPOSITORY, and GITHUB_SHA when available.

JSON output is validated against the schemas under schemas/ on every release:

• schemas/report.schema.json — scan --json
• schemas/regressions.schema.json — check --json
• schemas/diff.schema.json — diff --json
• schemas/baseline.schema.json — .riskratchet.json on disk
• schemas/summary.schema.json — scan|check|diff --summary --json
• schemas/config.schema.json — config show --json

Native JSON output includes $schema and version fields so consumers can pin parsing behavior.

Common mistakes

• Running check without a baseline. riskratchet baseline must run first (typically on main) and the resulting .riskratchet.json checked in. Exits with code 2 when missing.
• Passing coverage.xml to --coverage. riskratchet reads coverage.json. Generate it with pytest --cov --cov-report=json:coverage.json or let riskratchet auto-generate it (see Pre-commit integration).
• Relying on the auto-coverage runner inside a sandbox with no pytest installed. Pass --no-auto-cov plus --allow-missing-coverage, or set [tool.riskratchet] test_command to a runner that does work in your environment.
• Running without --no-git inside a sandbox that has no git history. Churn collection will be empty rather than failing, but pass --no-git to be explicit and slightly faster.
• Parsing stdout as both prose and JSON. Pick a format. With --json, stdout is a single JSON object; status messages go to stderr.
• When check exits 1, it prints a short hint to stderr with the two ways out: regenerate the baseline (riskratchet baseline ...) or loosen the per-component gate (--no-component-regression-gate, --fail-component-regression-above). Stdout stays clean so --json consumers are unaffected.
• Bumping the baseline to silence a regression. The baseline is the bar; if it has to move up, do it in a dedicated PR with a written justification.

Suppressions and partial coverage

Use --exclude to skip files at discovery time. Use --allow to analyze a file but suppress matching functions from reporting and gating:

riskratchet check src --baseline .riskratchet.json \
  --allow "GeneratedModel.*" \
  --allow "src/generated/**"

Function patterns match dotted qualified names. Patterns containing / or ** match repo-relative POSIX paths.

When a coverage file is present but a scanned source file has no matching coverage entry, riskratchet warns on stderr. The default missing-coverage policy is pessimistic: treat those functions as uncovered. For partial local runs you can choose:

riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --missing-coverage optimistic
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --missing-coverage skip

optimistic treats missing file coverage as fully covered. skip drops functions from unmapped files and reports the skipped count in JSON summary.

Pytest plugin

riskratchet ships a pytest plugin that runs check as part of your test session. After pip install riskratchet:

pytest \
  --cov --cov-report=json:coverage.json \
  --riskratchet \
  --riskratchet-paths src \
  --riskratchet-baseline .riskratchet.json

The session exits non-zero when riskratchet finds regressions, so you can gate CI on pytest alone. Available flags:

• --riskratchet (required to enable the plugin)
• --riskratchet-paths (default: src, repeatable)
• --riskratchet-baseline (default: .riskratchet.json)
• --riskratchet-coverage (default: coverage.json)
• --riskratchet-fail-new-above (default: 50)
• --riskratchet-fail-regression-above (default: 5)

How risk is scored

Each function gets six component scores in [0, 100]:

Component	Weight	What it measures
coverage_gap	30%	1 - line_coverage
structural_complexity	25%	cyclomatic complexity, saturating at CC=20
branch_gap	15%	1 - branch_coverage when branch coverage is known
churn	10%	commits in the last 90 days, saturating at 10
public_surface	10%	coverage gap penalised harder when the function is public
sprawl	10%	function length and file length blended

The total risk is the weighted sum. Severity bands: 0-24 low, 25-49 medium, 50-74 high, 75-100 critical.

Components, in plain English

Each component is rescaled to [0, 100] (where 100 = maximum risk for that signal) before being weighted into the total. Here's what each one actually means, with a concrete example.

coverage_gap — "is this function tested at all?" The fraction of lines in the function that your test suite never executes. A function with 100% line coverage scores 0; a function with 0% line coverage scores 100.

Example: a 40-line parse_invoice where your tests only exercise the happy path (28 lines covered, 12 missed) → coverage_gap = 30. A brand-new migrate_to_v2 with no tests at all → coverage_gap = 100.

structural_complexity — "how many ways can this function go?" Cyclomatic complexity, which roughly counts independent paths through the function (each if, elif, and, or, for, except adds one). Saturates at CC=20 — anything past that is already "very complex" and we don't need to keep counting.

Example: a getter with one return statement → CC=1, score 0. A validate_user_input with 6 chained if/elif branches → CC=7, score ~35. A 14-way match statement → CC=15, score ~75.

branch_gap — "are both sides of every if tested?" Like coverage_gap, but for branches. A function whose tests only ever take the if True path of an if/else will have full line coverage but only 50% branch coverage. Only counts when your coverage run included --cov-branch.

Example: def discount(user): return 0.2 if user.is_premium else 0.0. A test that only passes premium users → 100% line coverage but 50% branch coverage → branch_gap = 50.

churn — "how often does this function change?" Number of git commits touching the function's line range in the configured churn window (default 90 days, set with --churn-days or [tool.riskratchet] churn_window_days). Saturates at 10 commits. High churn means many people have edited it recently, which correlates with bugs.

Example: a stable parse_iso_date last touched two years ago → churn = 0. A pricing_engine.calculate_total that's been edited in 14 of the last 90 commits → saturates at 10 → churn = 100.

public_surface — "if this breaks, do callers we can't see break too?" A multiplier on coverage gap: when a function is part of your public API, its missing coverage is penalized harder than the same gap on a private helper. A private helper with 40% coverage is a problem you can fix locally; a public function with 40% coverage is a contract problem.

How "public" is determined:

• No __all__ in the module: by qualname. foo is public; _foo is private; Foo.__init__ is public (dunder exception).
• Module declares __all__: additive promotion. A leading-underscore top-level name (e.g. _LegacyExposed) is treated as public if it appears in __all__. Omission never demotes — a public-by-name function not in __all__ stays public, because __all__ only controls import *, not reachability. Nested segments still follow the naming rule: _LegacyExposed.bar is public, but _LegacyExposed._helper is not.
• Dynamic __all__ (__all__ += [...], concatenation, conditional) falls back to the naming rule.

Example: _normalize_path with 50% coverage → public_surface = 25. Public format_currency with 50% coverage → public_surface = 50. _LegacyExposed in __all__ with 50% coverage → public_surface = 50 (promoted to public despite the underscore).

sprawl — "is this function (or its file) just too big?" A blend of function length and the surrounding file's length. Long functions are harder to hold in your head; long files mean any function in them has more neighbors competing for attention. Both contribute.

Example: a 12-line function in a 200-line file → sprawl = 5. A 180-line function in a 2,000-line module → sprawl = 85.

Putting it together: a worked example

Suppose services/billing.py::reconcile_subscriptions is 180 lines, public, has CC=14, 55% line coverage, 40% branch coverage, no recent churn, and lives in a 900-line file. Its components might look like:

Component	Raw signal	Score	Weight	Contribution
coverage_gap	45% uncovered	45	0.30	13.5
structural_complexity	CC=14 of 20 saturating	70	0.25	17.5
branch_gap	60% uncovered branches	60	0.15	9.0
churn	0 commits in 90 days	0	0.10	0.0
public_surface	public + 45% gap	45	0.10	4.5
sprawl	long function, big file	65	0.10	6.5
total				51.0

Score 51 → high severity. The dominant drivers are complexity and branch coverage; if you wanted to lower it without rewriting the function, the cheapest path is adding branch tests, not deleting lines.

Configuring weights

Weights are configurable per project. Drop a [tool.riskratchet.weights] table in pyproject.toml to override any subset; the remaining components keep their defaults and the whole vector is renormalized so the total still maps to [0, 100]. For example, to ignore churn entirely and double-weight coverage:

[tool.riskratchet.weights]
coverage_gap = 0.6
churn = 0.0

Unknown keys and negative values are rejected at startup so a typo cannot silently weaken the score.

Output formats

riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --format table     # default
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --json             # shortcut for --format json
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --format markdown  # for PR comments
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --format sarif     # for SARIF consumers
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --format github    # GitHub Actions annotations
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --format pr-comment
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --summary          # aggregate lines only
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --summary --json   # schema-backed summary envelope
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --quiet            # drops the trailing summary line
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --min-score 50     # hide lower-risk functions
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --top 10           # emit only the top N

riskratchet check accepts --baseline-format riskratchet, which is the default and currently the only supported baseline format.

SARIF intentionally has a narrower contract than native JSON: scan --format sarif emits current findings after the same score filter used for annotations, while check --format sarif and diff --format sarif emit only failing regressions. A clean baseline still produces valid SARIF with an empty results array.

Config validation and groups

Validate project config before relying on it in CI:

riskratchet config validate --config pyproject.toml
riskratchet config show --config pyproject.toml --json

config validate exits 2 for malformed TOML, unknown keys, invalid value types, invalid weights, or invalid group definitions. config show --json prints the resolved config with CLI defaults filled where riskratchet already has defaults.

Use [tool.riskratchet.groups] to roll function-level results up by package or workspace area:

[tool.riskratchet.groups]
core = "src/core"
api = ["src/api", "src/public_api"]

Each function is assigned to the longest matching repo-relative prefix. Ungrouped functions are reported as null in JSON fields and ungrouped in text or markdown summaries.

For early adoption before a baseline exists, scan can also fail on an absolute gate:

riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --fail-above 75
riskratchet scan src --coverage coverage.json --fail-severity high

Baseline gating is still the recommended mode for mature codebases.

JSON output (truncated):

{
  "$schema": "https://github.com/KayhanB21/riskratchet/schemas/report.schema.json",
  "version": "0.2",
  "summary": {
    "total_functions": 10,
    "analyzed_functions": 42,
    "emitted_functions": 10,
    "total_files": 6,
    "coverage_status": "present",
    "suppressed_functions": 1,
    "skipped_missing_coverage": 0,
    "by_severity": {
      "low": 1,
      "medium": 6,
      "high": 3,
      "critical": 0
    }
  },
  "functions": [
    {
      "path": "src/foo.py",
      "qualname": "Foo.bar",
      "score": 62.3,
      "severity": "high",
      "components": {
        "coverage_gap": 80.0,
        "structural_complexity": 55.0,
        "branch_gap": 70.0,
        "churn": 30.0,
        "public_surface": 80.0,
        "sprawl": 10.0
      },
      "crap": 12.4
    }
  ]
}

Markdown output is suitable for posting as a PR comment via gh pr comment.

Editor integration

See docs/ide-integration.md for how to view findings inline in VS Code (via the SARIF Viewer extension) and JetBrains IDEs.

Sample output on real libraries

I ran riskratchet against four widely-used Python libraries to show what its output looks like on production code. Each was cloned fresh, its own test suite run with pytest --cov --cov-report=json:coverage.json, then scanned. Top findings:

Library	Function	Score	CC	Line cov
python-slugify	__main__::main	53.1 (high)	3	11% (0% branch)
python-slugify	slugify	33.3	27	88%
tabulate	_CustomTextWrap._wrap_chunks	44.4	31	60%
tabulate	_normalize_tabular_data	42.6	76	78%
tabulate	tabulate (entry)	37.1	62	97%
humanize	precisedelta	32.9	26	100%
humanize	naturaldelta	32.4	33	100%
inflect	engine._sinoun	36.7	108	98%
inflect	engine._plnoun	36.2	100	99%

The point is not that these libraries are bad. They have all-green CI and many users. The point is that even mature, well-tested code accumulates functions where complexity, coverage, and sprawl combine into something worth a second pair of eyes. A CC=108 function with 98% coverage is not on fire. It is a function that works and is tested. The ratchet's job is to keep those numbers from getting worse over time.

Comparison with other tools

Tool	Per-function risk	Baseline / ratchet	Combines complexity + coverage + churn
coverage.py	line / branch only	no	no
radon	complexity only	no	no
xenon	complexity only	yes (threshold)	no
pytest-crap	yes (CRAP)	no	partial (CC + line coverage)
riskratchet	yes	yes	yes

Local development

The same commands run in GitHub Actions. Run them locally before pushing.

uv sync --locked
uv run ruff check .
uv run ruff format --check .
uv run mypy src tests
uv run pytest --cov=src/riskratchet --cov-branch --cov-report=term-missing
uv build --clear

Strict typing covers both src/ and tests/.

Release

Releases are published to PyPI via GitHub Actions Trusted Publishing (OIDC, no API tokens). To cut a release:

# 1. Bump `version` in pyproject.toml and move CHANGELOG entries from
#    "Unreleased" into a new dated section. Commit on master.
# 2. Tag and push:
git tag vX.Y.Z
git push origin vX.Y.Z

The publish.yml workflow runs the same quality gates as CI (ruff, mypy, pytest), builds the distribution, and publishes via OIDC with PEP 740 attestations. The pypi GitHub environment gates the upload step with a required-reviewer rule. If CI is red on master, do not tag — the workflow's quality gate will fail anyway.