Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 19:33 UTC

0xdea / rhabdomancer

Vulnerability research assistant that locates calls to potentially insecure API functions in a binary file.

RustMIT★ 135 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#reverse-engineering #vulnerability-research #ida-plugin #ida-pro #idalib #rust

0xdea/rhabdomancer holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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.

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)

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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

raptorPersonal account

1,147 followers101 public repossince Jul 2017@hnsecurity

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	rhabdomancer	0.10.0	53	38	53 days ago	binary-file ida idalib reverse-engineering vuln-dev command-line-utilities security

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

98Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.9/36	Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 227 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	227
human_commit_share	0.9
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	49

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 38 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 53 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~28.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	38
latest_release_tag	v0.10.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	53
mean_days_between_releases	28.3

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?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

46Weak

How it's scored

34.5/60	Stars — 135 stars
9.3/25	Forks — 14 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	14
stars	135
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	8
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

29At Risk

How it's scored

23.1/80	Monthly downloads — 53 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	rhabdomancer
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	17,200
monthly_downloads	53
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30	PR acceptance — 10/10 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	10
open_issues	0
closed_issues	1
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	0
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

71Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22/25	Owner reach — 1,147 followers of 0xdea
25/25	Track record — 101 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,147
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	0xdea
public_repos	101
account_age_days	3,356

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 53 days ago
20/20	Version history — 38 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	rhabdomancer
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	53

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — Cargo.toml ([lints], [workspace.lints])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://hex-rays.com/ida-pro
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 6 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	reverse-engineering, vulnerability-research, ida-plugin, ida-pro, idalib, rust
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://hex-rays.com/ida-pro
docs_site	https://hex-rays.com/ida-pro
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

59Moderate

How it's scored

6.8/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	4
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	123
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	low 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 123 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

93Exceptional · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.hex-rays.com/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 90 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.hex-rays.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	5,553

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

85Excellent

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([lints], [workspace.lints])
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.1

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/5 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	11,542
source_files_sampled	5
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

135GitHub stars

1contributors

227commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

38releases

1bus factor

0open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿

0Stars

14Forks

35Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 7Patch 28

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10

5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 19:33 UTC

9	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8	CI-Tests	6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7	Vulnerabilities	3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	idalib	`0.10`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	config	`0.15`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1.0`	Cargo.toml

All dependencies 123

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 119 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.104`	direct
crates.io	config	`0.15.25`	direct
crates.io	idalib	`0.10.1+9.4.260714`	direct
crates.io	serde	`1.0.229`	direct
crates.io	aho-corasick	`1.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle	`1.0.14`	indirect
crates.io	aquamarine	`0.1.12`	indirect
crates.io	atty	`0.2.14`	indirect
crates.io	autocfg	`1.5.1`	indirect
crates.io	autocxx-bindgen-idalib	`0.73.0`	indirect
crates.io	autocxx-build-idalib	`0.30.0`	indirect
crates.io	autocxx-engine-idalib	`0.30.0`	indirect
crates.io	autocxx-idalib	`0.30.0`	indirect
crates.io	autocxx-macro-idalib	`0.30.0`	indirect
crates.io	autocxx-parser-idalib	`0.30.0`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.13.2`	indirect
crates.io	cc	`1.4.6`	indirect
crates.io	cexpr	`0.6.0`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.5`	indirect
crates.io	clang-sys	`1.9.1`	indirect
crates.io	clap	`4.6.7`	indirect
crates.io	clap_builder	`4.6.7`	indirect
crates.io	clap_lex	`1.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	codespan-reporting	`0.13.1`	indirect
crates.io	cxx	`1.0.202`	indirect
crates.io	cxx-build	`1.0.202`	indirect
crates.io	cxx-gen	`0.7.202`	indirect
crates.io	cxxbridge-cmd	`1.0.202`	indirect
crates.io	cxxbridge-flags	`1.0.202`	indirect
crates.io	cxxbridge-macro	`1.0.202`	indirect
crates.io	either	`1.18.0`	indirect
crates.io	env_logger	`0.9.3`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	errno	`0.3.14`	indirect
crates.io	fastrand	`2.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	find-msvc-tools	`0.1.12`	indirect
crates.io	foldhash	`0.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.4.3`	indirect
crates.io	glob	`0.3.4`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.12.3`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.17.1`	indirect
crates.io	hermit-abi	`0.1.19`	indirect
crates.io	humantime	`2.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	idalib-build	`0.10.1+9.4.260714`	indirect
crates.io	idalib-sys	`0.10.1+9.4.260714`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`1.9.3`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`2.14.2`	indirect
crates.io	indoc	`1.0.9`	indirect
crates.io	itertools	`0.10.5`	indirect
crates.io	itertools	`0.13.0`	indirect
crates.io	itertools	`0.9.0`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.189`	indirect
crates.io	libloading	`0.8.9`	indirect
crates.io	link-cplusplus	`1.0.12`	indirect
crates.io	linux-raw-sys	`0.12.1`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.34`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.3`	indirect
crates.io	miette	`5.10.0`	indirect
crates.io	miette-derive	`5.10.0`	indirect
crates.io	minimal-lexical	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	moveit	`0.6.0`	indirect
crates.io	nom	`7.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	objc2	`0.6.4`	indirect
crates.io	objc2-encode	`4.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.4`	indirect
crates.io	pathdiff	`0.2.3`	indirect
crates.io	prettyplease	`0.2.37`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro-error	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro-error-attr	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.107`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.47`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`6.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	regex	`1.13.1`	indirect
crates.io	regex-automata	`0.4.18`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.6.29`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.8.11`	indirect
crates.io	regex_static	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	regex_static_impl	`0.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	regex_static_macro	`0.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	rustc-hash	`2.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	rustix	`1.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	rustversion	`1.0.23`	indirect
crates.io	scratch	`1.0.9`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.151`	indirect
crates.io	serde_spanned	`1.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`1.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`2.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	strsim	`0.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`1.0.109`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.119`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`3.0.6`	indirect
crates.io	tempfile	`3.27.0`	indirect
crates.io	termcolor	`1.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror	`1.0.69`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`1.0.69`	indirect
crates.io	toml	`1.1.6+spec-1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	toml_datetime	`1.1.1+spec-1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	toml_parser	`1.1.3+spec-1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.26`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-width	`0.1.14`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-width	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	version_check	`0.9.5`	indirect
crates.io	winapi	`0.3.9`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-util	`0.1.11`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.59.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	windows-targets	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	winnow	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.23`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 123 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
atty	`0.2.14`	indirect	low	3	—
proc-macro-error	`1.0.4`	indirect	unknown	1	—

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.

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 — crates.io.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records