Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 00:22 UTC

asweigart / pyperclip

Python module for cross-platform clipboard functions.

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 1,839 stars⑂ 222 forkssince Jun 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

asweigart/pyperclip holds a health index of 45 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (67/100) and lowest on Vitality (8/100). It was last updated 293 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

45
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.

45
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 47 is calibrated to 45 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Al SweigartPersonal account
5,433 followers297 public repossince Feb 2009

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
PyPIpyperclip1.11.0-47293 days agoclipboardcopypasteclipxselxclip

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

8Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

13Critical
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 293 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume — 5 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_year5
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push293
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

67Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

81Excellent
How it's scored
53/60Stars — 1,839 stars
19.5/25Forks — 222 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 33 watchers
Inputs used
forks222
stars1,839
watchers33
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 (BSD-3-Clause)
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 39 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 36 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled39
top_contributor_share0.718

Issue & PR responsiveness

45Weak
How it's scored
15/42Issue resolution — 36% of issues closed
18.2/30PR acceptance — 57/94 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs57
open_issues116
closed_issues64
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.356
closed_unmerged_prs37
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

75Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach — 5,433 followers of asweigart
25/25Track record — 297 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,433
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginasweigart
public_repos297
account_age_days6,369
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 293 days ago
20/20Version history — 47 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyperclip
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish293

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
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 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyperclip
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyperclip
docs_sitehttps://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyperclip
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak
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 8 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 36 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 — no data
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 — no data
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

50Moderate · 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)

85Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesPipfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes23,343
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,839GitHub stars
39contributors
5commits, last 12 months
293days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
116open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 00:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 8/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 36 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
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
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPImypy1.10.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPIpackaging24.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpytest8.2.2indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.12.2indirect
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 asweigart/pyperclip. Read them side by side →

32sindresorhus/clipboardyAccess the system clipboard (copy/paste)At Risk80tinylibs/tinyclipA tiny, cross-platform clipboard utility.Excellent98facebook/lexicalLexical is an extensible text editor framework that provides excellent reliability, accessibility and performance.Exceptional67CopyText/TextCopyA cross platform package to copy text to and from the clipboard.Good65sudodoki/copy-to-clipboardCopy stuff into clipboard from your browser using JSGood83mlfoundations/open_clipAn open source implementation of CLIP.Excellent

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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