Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 19:43 UTC

LFDT-Lockness / rand_hash

Cryptographically-secure pseudo-random generator based on cryptographic hash function in Rust

RustApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2024View on GitHub ↗

LFDT-Lockness/rand_hash holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Security (82/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated 56 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LocknessOrganization
74 followers16 public repossince Aug 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iorand_hash0.3.08,402656 days agocsprngentropyhashrandomno-stdcryptography

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

50Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 56 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share0.965
days_since_last_push56
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 6 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 56 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~153.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv0.2.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release56
mean_days_between_releases153.6
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
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_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.3/80Monthly downloads — 8,402 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrand_hash
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads72,009
monthly_downloads8,402
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 78% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.782
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
18/30PR acceptance — 15/25 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs10
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
13.5/25Owner reach — 74 followers of LFDT-Lockness
13.1/25Track record — 16 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers74
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginLFDT-Lockness
public_repos16
account_age_days764

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 56 days ago
20/20Version history — 6 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrand_hash
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish56

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/rand_hash
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/rand_hash
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

82Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
1.5/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
4/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.6
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
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages67
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 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 67 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.5/40Legible commit history — 15 of 55 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.273
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
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 57
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 57 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.035
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes5,559
source_files_sampled1
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
22commits, last 12 months
56days since last push
6releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10
7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 19:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
8SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iodigest0.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioudigest0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_core0.10Cargo.toml
All dependencies 67

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iodigest0.10.7direct
crates.iorand_core0.10.1direct
crates.iorand_core0.9.5direct
crates.ioudigest0.2.0direct
crates.ioanyhow1.0.102indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.iobitflags2.13.0indirect
crates.ioblock-buffer0.10.4indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.0indirect
crates.iochacha200.10.0indirect
crates.ioconst-hex1.19.1indirect
crates.iocpufeatures0.2.12indirect
crates.iocpufeatures0.3.0indirect
crates.iocrypto-common0.1.6indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.iofoldhash0.1.5indirect
crates.iogeneric-array0.14.7indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.2indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.15.5indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.17.1indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioid-arena2.3.0indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.14.0indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.18indirect
crates.ioleb128fmt0.1.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.155indirect
crates.iolog0.4.32indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.1indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioppv-lite860.2.17indirect
crates.ioprettyplease0.2.37indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioproptest1.11.0indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.36indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.iorand0.10.1indirect
crates.iorand0.9.4indirect
crates.iorand_chacha0.10.0indirect
crates.iorand_chacha0.9.0indirect
crates.iorand_dev0.3.0indirect
crates.iorand_xorshift0.4.0indirect
crates.iosemver1.0.28indirect
crates.ioserde1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_json1.0.150indirect
crates.iosha20.10.8indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.117indirect
crates.iotypenum1.17.0indirect
crates.ioudigest-derive0.2.0indirect
crates.iounarray0.1.4indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.12indirect
crates.iounicode-xid0.2.6indirect
crates.ioversion_check0.9.4indirect
crates.iowasip21.0.3+wasi-0.2.9indirect
crates.iowasip30.4.0+wasi-0.3.0-rc-2026-01-06indirect
crates.iowasm-encoder0.244.0indirect
crates.iowasm-metadata0.244.0indirect
crates.iowasmparser0.244.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen0.57.1indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-core0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rust0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rust-macro0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-component0.244.0indirect
crates.iowit-parser0.244.0indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.21indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 67 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
anyhow1.0.102indirectunknown11.0.103

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.