Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 10:05 UTC

RagnarGrootKoerkamp / cacheline-ef

Elias-Fano encoding per cache line

RustNo license detected★ 4 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Sep 2024View on GitHub ↗

RagnarGrootKoerkamp/cacheline-ef holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (53/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (27/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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 39 is calibrated to 34 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ragnar Groot KoerkampPersonal account
341 followers98 public repossince Dec 2013KIT

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.iocacheline-ef2.0.022,37530 days agocompressionelias-fanodata-structuresscience

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume4 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year4
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases2 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~516.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases516.9
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?

30At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars4 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars4
watchers1
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_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58/80Monthly downloads22,375 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescacheline-ef
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads77,862
monthly_downloads22,375
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?

41Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
18.2/25Owner reach341 followers of RagnarGrootKoerkamp
25/25Track record98 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers341
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginRagnarGrootKoerkamp
public_repos98
account_age_days4,633
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
12/20Version history3 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescacheline-ef
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

27At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/cacheline-ef
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/cacheline-ef
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
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-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
2.2/7.5Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories8
affected_packages5
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 2, low 1, unknown 2
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 73 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes8,708
source_files_sampled1
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4GitHub stars
1contributors
4commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index crates:cacheline-ef@2.0.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212025-042025-072025-10
OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 10:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iomem_dbg0.4.4Cargo.toml
crates.iocommon_traits0.13.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioepserde0.13.1Cargo.toml
All dependencies 73

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 70 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iocommon_traits0.11.2direct
crates.ioepserde0.8.0direct
crates.iomem_dbg0.3.0direct
crates.ioanyhow1.0.97indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.4.0indirect
crates.iobitflags1.3.2indirect
crates.iobitflags2.9.0indirect
crates.iobyteorder1.5.0indirect
crates.iobytes1.10.1indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.0indirect
crates.iocombine4.6.7indirect
crates.iocrunchy0.2.3indirect
crates.ioenum-as-inner0.6.1indirect
crates.ioepserde-derive0.8.0indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.3.2indirect
crates.iohalf2.5.0indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioimpl-tools0.10.3indirect
crates.ioimpl-tools-lib0.11.1indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.171indirect
crates.iomach20.4.2indirect
crates.iomaligned0.2.1indirect
crates.iomem_dbg-derive0.2.0indirect
crates.iomemchr2.7.4indirect
crates.iomemoffset0.7.1indirect
crates.iommap-rs0.6.1indirect
crates.ionix0.26.4indirect
crates.iopin-utils0.1.0indirect
crates.ioppv-lite860.2.21indirect
crates.ioproc-macro-error-attr22.0.0indirect
crates.ioproc-macro-error22.0.1indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.94indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.40indirect
crates.ior-efi5.2.0indirect
crates.iorand0.9.0indirect
crates.iorand_chacha0.9.0indirect
crates.iorand_core0.9.3indirect
crates.iosame-file1.0.6indirect
crates.iosealed0.6.0indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.100indirect
crates.iosysctl0.5.5indirect
crates.iothiserror1.0.69indirect
crates.iothiserror2.0.12indirect
crates.iothiserror-impl1.0.69indirect
crates.iothiserror-impl2.0.12indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.18indirect
crates.iowalkdir2.5.0indirect
crates.iowasi0.14.2+wasi-0.2.4indirect
crates.iowidestring1.2.0indirect
crates.iowinapi-util0.1.9indirect
crates.iowindows0.48.0indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.59.0indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.48.5indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rt0.39.0indirect
crates.ioxxhash-rust0.8.15indirect
crates.iozerocopy0.8.24indirect
crates.iozerocopy-derive0.8.24indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 73 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
bytes1.10.1indirectmoderate21.11.1
maligned0.2.1indirectmoderate2
rand0.9.0indirectlow20.10.1
anyhow1.0.97indirectunknown11.0.103
proc-macro-error22.0.1indirectunknown1

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.