Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-21 07:50 UTC

VladimirMarkelov / rclc

Mathematical expression calculator with big integers, floats, common fractions, and complex numbers support

RustMIT★ 28 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#calculator #cli #math #mathematics #expression #command-line-tool #command-line

VladimirMarkelov/rclc holds a health index of 26 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (49/100) and lowest on Vitality (19/100). It was last updated 1864 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 36 is calibrated to 30 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Vladimir MarkelovPersonal account

43 followers33 public repossince Mar 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	rclc	1.0.0	13	6	1864 days ago	calculator math terminal cli command-line-utilities

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

19Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 1865 daysautomated commits excludedreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintained

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 1,864 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	1,864
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

47Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 9 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,864 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~100.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	9
latest_release_tag	v1.0.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,864
mean_days_between_releases	100.6

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

31At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

23At Risk

How it's scored

23.2/60	Stars — 28 stars
0/25	Forks — 2 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	2
stars	28
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

19Critical

How it's scored

15.3/80	Monthly downloads — 13 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	rclc
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	8,672
monthly_downloads	13
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?

49Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
0/30	PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	0
closed_issues	3
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	0
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.8/25	Owner reach — 43 followers of VladimirMarkelov
23.2/25	Track record — 33 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	43
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	VladimirMarkelov
public_repos	33
account_age_days	5,260

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

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 1,864 days ago
20/20	Version history — 6 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	rclc
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	1,864

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — rustfmt.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/rclc
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	calculator, cli, math, mathematics, expression, command-line-tool, command-line
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/rclc
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

36Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

21At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	2.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

96Exceptional

How it's scored

32.2/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: atty 0.2.14 (low)
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
39/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,873 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	3
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	26
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	low 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Matched the crates:rclc@1.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 26 packages. 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

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — rustfmt.toml
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.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.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	7,297
source_files_sampled	2
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

28GitHub stars

1contributors

0commits, last 12 months

1,864days since last push

9releases

1bus factor

0open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿

0Stars

2Forks

5Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.1 / 10

2.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-21 07:50 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	getopts	`0.2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	atty	`0.2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	rcalc_lib	`1`	Cargo.toml

All dependencies 38

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	atty	`0.2.14`	direct
crates.io	getopts	`0.2.21`	direct
crates.io	rcalc_lib	`1.0.0`	direct
crates.io	autocfg	`1.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	block-buffer	`0.7.3`	indirect
crates.io	block-padding	`0.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	byte-tools	`0.3.1`	indirect
crates.io	byteorder	`1.4.3`	indirect
crates.io	digest	`0.8.1`	indirect
crates.io	dtoa	`0.4.8`	indirect
crates.io	fake-simd	`0.1.2`	indirect
crates.io	generic-array	`0.12.4`	indirect
crates.io	hermit-abi	`0.1.19`	indirect
crates.io	lazy_static	`1.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.98`	indirect
crates.io	maplit	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	num-bigint	`0.2.6`	indirect
crates.io	num-complex	`0.2.4`	indirect
crates.io	num-integer	`0.1.44`	indirect
crates.io	num-rational	`0.2.4`	indirect
crates.io	num-traits	`0.2.14`	indirect
crates.io	opaque-debug	`0.2.3`	indirect
crates.io	pest	`2.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	pest_derive	`2.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	pest_generator	`2.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	pest_meta	`2.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.27`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.9`	indirect
crates.io	rclc	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	sha-1	`0.8.2`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`1.0.73`	indirect
crates.io	typenum	`1.13.0`	indirect
crates.io	ucd-trie	`0.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-width	`0.1.8`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-xid	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	winapi	`0.3.9`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

Installing crates:rclc@1.0.0 pulls in 26 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
atty	`0.2.14`	direct	low	3	—

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records