# Rul1an/assay — health index 91/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository Rul1an/assay by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/Rul1an/assay
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/Rul1an/assay
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/Rul1an/assay/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/r/Rul1an/assay.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-13
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 50/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Security | 16% | 74/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 98/100 | Exceptional |

The weighted overall 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Open evidence profile for MCP tool actions. Enforce configured tool-call policies and record decisions and observations in offline-verifiable bundles. Optional Linux kernel controls. No hosted backend required. |
| Classification | library, mcp-server, plugin |
| Homepage | https://getassay.dev |
| Primary language | Rust |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 13 |
| Forks | 3 |
| Created | 2025-12-20 |
| Last push | 2026-10-13 |
| Latest release | v6.11.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 5,372 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | rust, ai-agents, mcp, policy-as-code, mcp-server, policy-enforcement, agent-security, evidence-bundles, github-actions, provenance, ebpf, mcp-security, attestation, offline-verification |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | assay-it | 6.11.0 | 4,222 |

## Vitality — 96/100 (Exceptional)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 29.8 / 36 | 43/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 5372 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~2.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | partial | 8 / 10 | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 50/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 20/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 17.5 / 60 | 13 stars |
| Forks | partial | 2.5 / 25 | 3 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 60/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 48.3 / 80 | 4,222 downloads/month across pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 61/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 32/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 4.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 81% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 8.1 / 13.5 | 6 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 77/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 38.6 / 42 | 92% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 28 / 30 | 2544/2729 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 47/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 8.5 / 25 | 14 followers of Rul1an |
| Track record | partial | 19 / 25 | 63 public repos, account ~3 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 0 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 138 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 96/100 (Exceptional)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 60 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), assay-python-sdk/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ruff.toml |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://getassay.dev |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 14 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 74/100 (Good)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 74/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| SAST | partial | 0.5 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | partial | 6 / 7.5 | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| Token-Permissions | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 191 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 98/100 (Exceptional)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, docs/AIcontext/CLAUDE.md, docs/architecture/agents.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt present |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 87 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 95/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, demo/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), assay-python-sdk/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ruff.toml |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | assay-python-sdk/python/assay/py.typed, docs/experiments/cross-runtime-drift-2026-05/workload-gemini/tsconfig.json, docs/experiments/cross-runtime-drift-2026-05/workload-openai/tsconfig.json, docs/experiments/runner-vs-otel-2026-05/workload/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 21 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 8 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.1 / 55 | 29/1708 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | crates/assay-core/tests/fixtures/otel-mcp-ingest-v0/vendor/opentelemetry-proto-v1.11.0/opentelemetry/proto/collector/trace/v1/trace_service.proto, crates/assay-core/tests/fixtures/otel-mcp-ingest-v0/vendor/opentelemetry-proto-v1.11.0/opentelemetry/proto/common/v1/common.proto, crates/assay-core/tests/fixtures/otel-mcp-ingest-v0/vendor/opentelemetry-proto-v1.11.0/opentelemetry/proto/resource/v1/resource.proto, crates/assay-core/tests/fixtures/otel-mcp-ingest-v0/vendor/opentelemetry-proto-v1.11.0/opentelemetry/proto/trace/v1/trace.proto |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch crates package 'assay-it' from its registry
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
- deps.dev does not index pypi:assay-it@6.11.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt