Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-12 04:42 UTC

Atostek / ros2-client

ROS2 client library based on RustDDS

RustNo license detected★ 126 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Dec 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Atostek/ros2-client holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (73/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (46/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

Atostek OyOrganization
14 followers7 public repossince May 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioros2-client0.10.119,520231 day agoddsnetworkprotocolrtpsnetwork-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume49 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year49
human_commit_share0.89
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases22 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~82.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tag0.10.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases82.1
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34/60Stars126 stars
11.8/25Forks27 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars126
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57.2/80Monthly downloads19,520 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesros2-client
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads223,582
monthly_downloads19,520
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
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.896
How it's scored
31.2/42Issue resolution74% of issues closed
20.5/30PR acceptance28/41 decided PRs merged
3.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs28
open_issues9
closed_issues26
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.743
closed_unmerged_prs13
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
8.5/25Owner reach14 followers of Atostek
18.6/25Track record7 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers14
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginAtostek
public_repos7
account_age_days3,745
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history23 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesros2-client
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/ros2-client
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, ros2
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/ros2-client
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.6/40Legible commit history36 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.404
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice15 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance11 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.15
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.11
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
54/55Manageable file sizes1/56 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes66,706
source_files_sampled56
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
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

126GitHub stars
10contributors
49commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
9open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 27 ⇿
0Stars
27Forks
21Releases

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.

0510152025302722022-102024-092026-07
Major 0Minor 8Patch 13

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-12 04:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 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 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iorustdds0.14.1Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.11Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_repr0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy_static1.4.0Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid1.3.1Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures0.3.28Cargo.toml
crates.ioasync-channel2.3Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono>=0.4.35Cargo.toml
crates.ionom8.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.4.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioitertools0.15.0Cargo.toml
crates.iowidestring1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1.41Cargo.toml
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioasync-channeldirect
crates.iochronodirect
crates.ioclapdirect
crates.iofuturesdirect
crates.ioitertoolsdirect
crates.iolazy_staticdirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.ionomdirect
crates.iorustddsdirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_reprdirect
crates.iotracingdirect
crates.iouuiddirect
crates.iowidestringdirect
crates.ioasync-ctrlcindirect
crates.ioasync-ioindirect
crates.iocrosstermindirect
crates.ioctrlcindirect
crates.iolog4rsindirect
crates.iomio-extrasindirect
crates.iopretty_env_loggerindirect
crates.ioratatuiindirect
crates.iosmolindirect
crates.iotokioindirect
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 statisticscrates.io.