Grasp · Comprehension Index Scan Report

Who still understands pytest-dev/pytest?

Computed from git metadata only; no source code contents were read.
touch-weighted · 3-year history window · last commit 60d ago · scores are comparable only against same-mode scans

Grasp Score

touch-weighted living knowledge across the repo

Active humans

29 / 291

contributors active in last 90 days vs. all-time

AI-attributed minimum

≥ 10.3%

hard evidence only. Just 39% of commits here carry any attribution signal, so the real share is higher

Inactive share

26.0%

work by authors with no commit in the window; silence, not proof of departure

Composition

38/27/33/2%

source / tests / docs / config share of scored work

Living, source only

61%

the headline recomputed over hand-written source alone

Score stability

volatile

90-day-cliff variant reads 0%–76% across 60/90/180-day activity windows; read the width before the middle value

Dark-code ranking

Modules ranked by comprehension risk: the unknown share, amplified by ongoing change and thin ownership. The green meter is living knowledge.

Module	Risk	Living knowledge	AI-attr.	Inactive	Bus	Heat/180d
(root)	LOW 48	44%	19%	42%	4	85
changelog	LOW 48	48%	9%	50%	2	116
src	LOW 32	63%	11%	22%	3	280
testing	LOW 32	62%	9%	23%	4	181
doc	LOW 31	64%	2%	22%	3	109
.github	LOW 22	68%	14%	14%	3	14
scripts	LOW 19	68%	6%	12%	4	0

One commit touched 54% of every file changed in this window. Wide, shallow commits, a formatter run or a license-header pass, add weight for their author across the whole surface while changing little. Worth looking at what that commit was before crediting the score to its author.

Public-repo caveat: "departed" includes drive-by contributors, overstating attrition relative to a company repo with a real roster. Engagement is a proxy for comprehension. Treat it as a potential indicator rather than a diagnosis.