Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 23:53 UTC

Canop / bacon

background code checker

RustAGPL-3.0★ 3,409 stars⑂ 126 forkssince Oct 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Canop/bacon holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Security (43/100). It was last updated today. 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

Denys SéguretPersonal account
738 followers174 public repossince Feb 2011

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.iobacon3.25.07,41010717 days agobackgroundcompilerinotifyrustwatchcommand-line-utilitiesdevelopment-tools

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 150 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year150
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 75 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 17 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~39.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count75
latest_release_tagv3.25.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release17
mean_days_between_releases39.9
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
57.3/60Stars — 3,409 stars
17.5/25Forks — 126 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks126
stars3,409
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-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
51.6/80Monthly downloads — 7,410 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbacon
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads328,040
monthly_downloads7,410
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 61 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled61
top_contributor_share0.851
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance — 169/191 decided PRs merged
11.4/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 7/8 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs169
open_issues47
closed_issues224
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d10
prs_decided_30d12
issue_closed_ratio0.827
closed_unmerged_prs22
first_time_authors_30d8
first_time_prs_merged_30d7
first_time_prs_decided_30d8
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20.6/25Owner reach — 738 followers of Canop
25/25Track record — 174 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers738
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginCanop
public_repos174
account_age_days5,686
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 17 days ago
20/20Version history — 107 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbacon
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://dystroy.org/bacon
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, terminal, compilation, check, cargo
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://dystroy.org/bacon
docs_sitehttps://dystroy.org/bacon
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.3
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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.9/40Legible commit history — 28 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.28
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/123 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes41,918
source_files_sampled123
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3,409GitHub stars
61contributors
150commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
75releases
1bus factor
47open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 126 ⇿
0Stars
126Forks
75Releases

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.

025507510012512532020-112023-102026-09
Major 2Minor 43Patch 30

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 23:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests3 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 8/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 25
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioarboard3.4Cargo.toml
crates.iocargo_metadata0.19Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap-help1.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap_complete4.6Cargo.toml
crates.iocli-log2.1Cargo.toml
crates.iocrokey1.5Cargo.toml
crates.ioctrlc3.4Cargo.toml
crates.iodirectories-next2.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iogix0.87Cargo.toml
crates.ioglob0.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioiq0.5Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy-regex3.6Cargo.toml
crates.ionotify8.2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopaste1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iorodio0.21Cargo.toml
crates.iorustc-hash2Cargo.toml
crates.ioschemars1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotermimad0.35.4Cargo.toml
crates.iotoml1Cargo.toml
crates.iounicode-width0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iovte0.15Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.