Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 20:54 UTC

zeromq / pyzmq

PyZMQ: Python bindings for zeromq

PythonBSD-3-Clause★ 4,161 stars⑂ 667 forkssince Jul 2010View on GitHub ↗

zeromq/pyzmq holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (74/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

95
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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The ZeroMQ projectOrganization
1,404 followers87 public repossince Jul 2009

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIpyzmq27.1.0104,352,444106329 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
18/36Commit cadence26/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume107 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained18 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year107
human_commit_share0.77
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases25 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 329 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~44.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv27.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release329
mean_days_between_releases44.5
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?

89Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
58.7/60Stars4,161 stars
23.5/25Forks667 forks
11.1/15Watchers100 watchers
Inputs used
forks667
stars4,161
watchers100
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
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
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads104,352,444 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespyzmq
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads104,352,444
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?

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 70 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.857
How it's scored
40.1/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
26.6/30PR acceptance969/1,093 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs969
open_issues50
closed_issues1,029
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.954
closed_unmerged_prs124
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
22.6/25Owner reach1,404 followers of zeromq
25/25Track record87 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,404
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginzeromq
public_repos87
account_age_days6,215
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 329 days ago
20/20Version history106 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyzmq
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish329

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.flake8
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://zguide.zeromq.org/py:all
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscython, python, zeromq
has_wikino
homepagehttp://zguide.zeromq.org/py:all
docs_sitehttp://zguide.zeromq.org/py:all
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

80Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 70 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained18 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate8.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
18/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md (stub)
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
30.5/40Legible commit history44 of 77 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.571
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes170
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocs/Makefile, perf/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.flake8
11/11Static type checkingmypy.ini, zmq/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance16 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, perf/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini, zmq/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.16
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (mypy.ini, zmq/py.typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes1/177 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes62,424
source_files_sampled177
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

4,161GitHub stars
98contributors
107commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
25releases
1bus factor
50open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-21: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 4161 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 4,157 ★ / 667 ⇿
4,157Stars
667Forks
25Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-21. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0004,157651232010-022018-042026-07
Major 3Minor 7Patch 9

Each point covers 16 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.1 / 10
8.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 20:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 5/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 70 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained18 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcffipyproject.toml
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 23 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcffidirect
PyPIabi3auditindirect
PyPIblackindirect
PyPIcibuildwheelindirect
PyPIcodecovindirect
PyPIcoverageindirect
PyPIcythonindirect
PyPIdelvewheelindirect
PyPIenum-toolsindirect
PyPIflake8indirect
PyPIgeventindirect
PyPImyst-parserindirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-themeindirect
PyPIpygmentsindirect
PyPIpymongoindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-asyncioindirect
PyPIpytest-covindirect
PyPIpytest-rerunfailuresindirect
PyPIscikit-build-coreindirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinx8.*indirect
PyPItornadoindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.