Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 21:16 UTC

pybind / pybind11

Seamless operability between C++11 and Python

C++ · PythonCustom license★ 18,008 stars⑂ 2,322 forkssince Jul 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

pybind/pybind11 holds a health index of 98 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Security (78/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

98
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.

98
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 87 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

pybindOrganization
249 followers13 public repossince Mar 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIpybind113.1.0-6740 days agoc++11python-bindings

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.2/36Commit cadence — 45/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 170 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year170
human_commit_share0.82
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year45
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 41 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 40 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~49.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count41
latest_release_tagv3.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release40
mean_days_between_releases49.1
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?

85Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 18,008 stars
25/25Forks — 2,322 forks
13.3/15Watchers — 249 watchers
Inputs used
forks2,322
stars18,008
watchers249
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 101 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.215
How it's scored
31.3/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
24.4/30PR acceptance — 2,311/2,838 decided PRs merged
10.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 22/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs2,311
open_issues574
closed_issues1,686
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.746
closed_unmerged_prs527
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.2/25Owner reach — 249 followers of pybind
20.3/25Track record — 13 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers249
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginpybind
public_repos13
account_age_days3,851

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 40 days ago
20/20Version history — 67 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespybind11
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish40

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pybind11.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, bindings
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pybind11.readthedocs.io/
docs_sitehttps://pybind11.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

78Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 22/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 101 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages34
unassessed_packages6
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 34 resolved dependencies against OSV. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

85Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 80 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.976
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,804
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile, noxfile.py
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.pylint])
11/11Static type checking — pybind11/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 7 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 11 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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, noxfile.py
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspybind11/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.07
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.11
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
53.7/55Manageable file sizes — 6/260 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes183,265
source_files_sampled260
oversized_source_files6

Key facts

18,008GitHub stars
98contributors
170commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
41releases
3bus factor
574open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'pybind11' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2,322 ⇿
0Stars
2,322Forks
30Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

1,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,322312021-112024-042026-09
Major 1Minor 6Patch 19

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 21:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 22/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 101 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIbabel2.14.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.12.3indirect
PyPIbreathe4.35.0indirect
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.7.4indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.3.2indirect
PyPIdocutils0.20.1indirect
PyPIfuro2024.1.29indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.4.2indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImyst-parser3.0.1indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPIpackaging24.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout—indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIscikit-build-core—indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.4indirect
PyPIsphinx7.2.6indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.8indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.6indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.5indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-moderncmakedomain3.27.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.7indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.10indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-svg2pdfconverter1.2.2indirect
PyPItomlkit—indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 34 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.