Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-22 01:23 UTC

2bndy5 / redist-icons

A redistribution of various npm packages' icons (with some metadata)

RustGPL-3.0★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2025View on GitHub ↗

2bndy5/redist-icons holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (42/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BrendanPersonal account
46 followers50 public repossince Oct 2015

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 publish
crates.iomaterial-design-icons-pack7.4.474201415 days ago
PyPImaterial-design-icons-pack7.4.472201415 days ago
crates.ioocticons-pack19.40.0572318 days ago
crates.iofontawesome-free-pack7.3.1458683 days ago
PyPIocticons-pack19.40.03,624318 days ago
crates.iosimple-icons-pack16.35.0543528 days ago
PyPIfontawesome-free-pack7.3.1944683 days ago
PyPIsimple-icons-pack16.35.06,379528 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 143 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year143
human_commit_share0.49
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year50

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 90 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count90
latest_release_tagocticons/v19.40.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases3.6
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
54.9/80Monthly downloads — 13,160 downloads/month across crates, pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmaterial-design-icons-pack, material-design-icons-pack, octicons-pack, fontawesome-free-pack, octicons-pack, simple-icons-pack, fontawesome-free-pack, simple-icons-pack
dependents—
ecosystemscrates, pypi
total_downloads19,336
monthly_downloads13,160
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?

51Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
14/42Issue resolution — 33% of issues closed
25/30PR acceptance — 169/203 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs169
open_issues2
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d7
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.333
closed_unmerged_prs34
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12/25Owner reach — 46 followers of 2bndy5
24.4/25Track record — 50 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers46
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_login2bndy5
public_repos50
account_age_days4,035
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 8 package(s) on crates, pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 52 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmaterial-design-icons-pack, material-design-icons-pack, octicons-pack, fontawesome-free-pack, octicons-pack, simple-icons-pack, fontawesome-free-pack, simple-icons-pack
ecosystemscrates, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — biome.json
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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/material-design-icons-pack
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdeno, fontawesome-free, mdi, octicons, python, rust, simple-icons
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/material-design-icons-pack
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
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
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
advisories7
affected_packages1
assessed_packages43
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 43 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 49 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, crates/fontawesome/Cargo.toml, crates/mdi/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — biome.json
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 51 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crates/fontawesome/Cargo.toml, crates/mdi/Cargo.toml, crates/octicons/Cargo.toml, crates/simple-icons/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.51
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
39.5/55Manageable file sizes — 70/248 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes433,120
source_files_sampled248
oversized_source_files70

Key facts

2GitHub stars
1contributors
143commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
90releases
1bus factor
2open issues
crates.io, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'redist-icons' from its registry
  • pypi download statistics for 'material-design-icons-pack' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'octicons-pack' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'fontawesome-free-pack' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'simple-icons-pack' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for material-design-icons-pack carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)
  • pypi download figures for octicons-pack carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)
  • pypi download figures for fontawesome-free-pack carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)
  • pypi download figures for simple-icons-pack carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-22 01:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmsmol-toml^1.3.1common/package.json
npmwhich^7.0.0common/package.json
crates.iopyo3—crates/fontawesome/Cargo.toml
npm@fortawesome/fontawesome-free7.3.1crates/fontawesome/package.json
npmcommonworkspace:*crates/fontawesome/package.json
crates.iopyo3—crates/mdi/Cargo.toml
npm@mdi/svg7.4.47crates/mdi/package.json
npmcommonworkspace:*crates/mdi/package.json
crates.iopyo3—crates/octicons/Cargo.toml
npm@primer/octicons19.40.0crates/octicons/package.json
npmcommonworkspace:*crates/octicons/package.json
crates.iopyo3—crates/simple-icons/Cargo.toml
npmsimple-icons16.35.0crates/simple-icons/package.json
npmcommonworkspace:*crates/simple-icons/package.json
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iopyo30.29.3direct
npm@fortawesome/fontawesome-free7.3.1direct
npm@mdi/svg7.4.47direct
npm@primer/octicons19.40.0direct
npmsimple-icons16.35.0direct
npmsmol-toml^1.3.1direct
npmwhich^7.0.0direct
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.175indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.3indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.11.1indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.101indirect
crates.iopyo3-build-config0.29.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-ffi0.29.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros0.29.3indirect
crates.iopyo3-macros-backend0.29.3indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.40indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.106indirect
crates.iotarget-lexicon0.13.4indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.18indirect
npm@biomejs/biome^2.5.15indirect
npm@types/bun^1.4.3indirect
npm@types/node^26.6.5indirect
npm@types/which^3.0.4indirect
npmsvgo4.1.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.12.1indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIfilelock3.24.2indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.16indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.16.0indirect
PyPImaturin—indirect
PyPImypy2.4.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.6.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIredist-icons0.1.0indirect
PyPIruff0.17.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.13indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 43 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
virtualenv21.7.13indirecthigh721.14.9

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 — crates.io, PyPI.