Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 23:31 UTC

BurntSushi / jiff

A datetime library for Rust that encourages you to jump into the pit of success.

RustUnlicense★ 2,883 stars⑂ 116 forkssince Feb 2024View on GitHub ↗

BurntSushi/jiff holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (68/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Andrew GallantPersonal account
13,140 followers182 public repossince Oct 2010@openai

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 publishTags
crates.iojiff0.2.3518,691,5076727 days agocalendardatedurationtimezonedate-and-timeno-std
crates.iojiff-cli0.0.131774 days ago
crates.iojiff-icu0.2.2249,5185288 days agodateicutemporaltimezonedate-and-time
crates.iojiff-core0.1.02,515,365234 days agocivildatetimetimestampdate-and-time
crates.iojiff-sqlx0.2.027,216388 days agodatejiffsqlxtimezonedate-and-time
crates.iojiff-tzdb0.1.84,419,0611044 days agodateianatemporaltimezonedate-and-time
crates.iojiff-diesel0.1.35,1464534 days agodatedieseljifftimezonedate-and-time

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 15 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence37/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume273 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year273
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push15
active_weeks_last_year37
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases1 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 557 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencecadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tag0.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release557
mean_days_between_releases
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?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
56.1/60Stars2,883 stars
17.2/25Forks116 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks116
stars2,883
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Unlicense)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads25,907,813 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjiff, jiff-icu, jiff-core, jiff-sqlx, jiff-tzdb, jiff-diesel
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads213,907,480
monthly_downloads25,907,813
unverified_packages_excludedjiff-cli
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth57 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled57
top_contributor_share0.876
How it's scored
36/42Issue resolution86% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance260/301 decided PRs merged
10.4/13Newcomer PR acceptance4/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs260
open_issues38
closed_issues226
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.856
closed_unmerged_prs41
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach13,140 followers of BurntSushi
25/25Track record182 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers13,140
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginBurntSushi
public_repos182
account_age_days5,778
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable7 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 27 days ago
20/20Version history67 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjiff, jiff-cli, jiff-icu, jiff-core, jiff-sqlx, jiff-tzdb, jiff-diesel
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish27

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configcrates/jiff-core/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/jiff-icu/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/jiff/Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/jiff
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscalendar, civil, date, date-time, datetime, duration, iana, iso8601, jiff, local, rfc2822, rust, strftime, strptime, time, timezone, tzdb, utc, zone, temporal
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/jiff
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests22 out of 22 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
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 20 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
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages25
unassessed_packages50
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 25 resolved dependencies against OSV. 50 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 instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history80 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.8
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, bench/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configcrates/jiff-core/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/jiff-icu/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/jiff/Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, bench/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-core/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-diesel/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-icu/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-sqlx/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-static/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-tzdb-platform/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-tzdb/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff-wasm/Cargo.toml, crates/jiff/Cargo.toml, examples/diesel-mysql/Cargo.toml, examples/diesel-postgres-timestamp-confusion/Cargo.toml, examples/diesel-postgres/Cargo.toml, examples/diesel-sqlite/Cargo.toml, examples/sqlx-postgres/Cargo.toml, examples/sqlx-sqlite/Cargo.toml, examples/uptime/Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml, testprograms/invalid-tz-environment-variable/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
48.3/55Manageable file sizes23/189 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes259,085
source_files_sampled189
oversized_source_files23
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

2,883GitHub stars
57contributors
273commits, last 12 months
15days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
38open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'jiff-bench' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'jiff-wasm' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 116 ⇿
0Stars
116Forks
1Releases

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.

020406080100120116132024-072025-082026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

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 · 2026-08-22 23:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 20 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
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 46
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocriterion0.5.1bench/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiffbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.38bench/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono-tz0.9.0bench/Cargo.toml
crates.iotzfile0.1.3bench/Cargo.toml
crates.iotime0.3.36bench/Cargo.toml
crates.iohumantime2.1.0bench/Cargo.toml
crates.iotime-format1.2.2bench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow1.0.28crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iobstr1.9.1crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiffcrates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iolexopt0.3.0crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.17crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex-lite0.1.6crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iotextwrap0.16.1crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iowalkdir2.5.0crates/jiff-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioarbitrary1.4.2crates/jiff-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iodefmt1.0.0crates/jiff-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.21crates/jiff-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiff0.2.0crates/jiff-diesel/Cargo.toml
crates.iodiesel2.0.0crates/jiff-diesel/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiff0.2.11crates/jiff-icu/Cargo.toml
crates.ioicu_calendar2.0.0crates/jiff-icu/Cargo.toml
crates.ioicu_time2.0.0crates/jiff-icu/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiff0.2.0crates/jiff-sqlx/Cargo.toml
crates.iosqlx0.9.0crates/jiff-sqlx/Cargo.toml
crates.iojcore0.1crates/jiff-static/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiff-tzdb0.1.6crates/jiff-static/Cargo.toml
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.93crates/jiff-static/Cargo.toml
crates.ioquote1.0.38crates/jiff-static/Cargo.toml
crates.iosyn2.0.98crates/jiff-static/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiff-tzdb0.1.4crates/jiff-tzdb-platform/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiffcrates/jiff-wasm/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.84crates/jiff-wasm/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasm-bindgen-test0.3.34crates/jiff-wasm/Cargo.toml
crates.ioweb-sys0.3.69crates/jiff-wasm/Cargo.toml
crates.ioconsole_error_panic_hook0.1.7crates/jiff-wasm/Cargo.toml
crates.ioarbitrary1.4.2crates/jiff/Cargo.toml
crates.iodefmt1.0.0crates/jiff/Cargo.toml
crates.iojcore0.1.0crates/jiff/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiff-static0.2crates/jiff/Cargo.toml
crates.iojiff-tzdb0.1.8crates/jiff/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.21crates/jiff/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_core1.0.221crates/jiff/Cargo.toml
crates.ioenv_logger0.11.0testprograms/invalid-tz-environment-variable/Cargo.toml
crates.iojifftestprograms/invalid-tz-environment-variable/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 75

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 39 direct and 36 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioanyhowdirect
crates.ioarbitrarydirect
crates.ioarbitrary1.4.2direct
crates.iobstrdirect
crates.iochronodirect
crates.iochrono-tzdirect
crates.ioconsole_error_panic_hookdirect
crates.iocriteriondirect
crates.iodefmtdirect
crates.iodieseldirect
crates.ioenv_loggerdirect
crates.iohumantimedirect
crates.ioicu_calendardirect
crates.ioicu_timedirect
crates.iojiffdirect
crates.iojiff-staticdirect
crates.iojiff-static0.2.35direct
crates.iojiff-tzdbdirect
crates.iolexoptdirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.iolog0.4.29direct
crates.ioproc-macro2direct
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106direct
crates.ioquotedirect
crates.ioquote1.0.44direct
crates.ioregex-litedirect
crates.ioserde_coredirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228direct
crates.iosqlxdirect
crates.iosyndirect
crates.iosyn2.0.117direct
crates.iotextwrapdirect
crates.iotimedirect
crates.iotime-formatdirect
crates.iotzfiledirect
crates.iowalkdirdirect
crates.iowasm-bindgendirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-testdirect
crates.ioweb-sysdirect
crates.iocc1.2.56indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.ioderive_arbitrary1.4.2indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.9indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.3.4indirect
crates.iohifitimeindirect
crates.ioicuindirect
crates.ioinstaindirect
crates.iojiff-coreindirect
crates.iojiff-tzdb-platformindirect
crates.iojobserver0.1.34indirect
crates.iojs-sysindirect
crates.iolibc0.2.182indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys0.4.12indirect
crates.ioportable-atomicindirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.13.1indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic-utilindirect
crates.ioportable-atomic-util0.2.5indirect
crates.iopostcardindirect
crates.ioquickcheckindirect
crates.ior-efi5.3.0indirect
crates.ioserdeindirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_jsonindirect
crates.ioserde_yamlindirect
crates.ioshlex1.3.0indirect
crates.iotabwriterindirect
crates.iotempfileindirect
crates.iotime-tzindirect
crates.iotokioindirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iowasip21.0.2+wasi-0.2.9indirect
crates.iowindows-linkindirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen0.51.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 25 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 50 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 statisticscrates.io.