Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-08 07:51 UTC

WuBingzheng / primitive_fixed_point_decimal

Primitive fixed-point decimal types in Rust.

RustMIT★ 61 stars⑂ 6 forkssince May 2023View on GitHub ↗

WuBingzheng/primitive_fixed_point_decimal holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (55/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (30/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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

Ownership

WuBingzhengPersonal account

101 followers35 public repossince May 2015

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	primitive_fixed_point_decimal	1.5.0	2,057	36	0 days ago	decimal fixed-point no-std finance data-structures mathematics

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

43Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36	Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
17.8/18	Commit volume — 96 commits in the last year
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

commits_last_year	96
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	17

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

36Weak

How it's scored

28.8/60	Stars — 61 stars
5.8/25	Forks — 6 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	6
stars	61
watchers	3
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)

55Moderate

How it's scored

44.2/80	Monthly downloads — 2,057 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	primitive_fixed_point_decimal
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	27,022
monthly_downloads	2,057

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?

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.991

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
15/30	PR acceptance — 2/4 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	2
open_issues	0
closed_issues	9
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	2
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): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.4/25	Owner reach — 101 followers of WuBingzheng
23.3/25	Track record — 35 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	101
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	WuBingzheng
public_repos	35
account_age_days	4,113

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 36 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	primitive_fixed_point_decimal
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

31At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
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	no
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/primitive_fixed_point_decimal
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	decimal, fixed-point, no-std
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://docs.rs/primitive_fixed_point_decimal
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?

39Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak

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 0/30 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
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
3.8/7.5	Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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 — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	3.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): ci_tests, dangerous_workflow, packaging, pinned_dependencies, signed_releases, token_permissions. 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.

30At Risk · 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)
1.1/40	Legible commit history — 2 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.02
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

26At Risk

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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 — 0/8 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	34,670
source_files_sampled	8
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

61GitHub stars

3contributors

96commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

0releases

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:primitive_fixed_point_decimal@1.5.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿

0Stars

6Forks

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.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10

3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 07:51 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 0/30 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
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
5	Maintained	6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	div-pow10	`0.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	num-traits	`0.2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1.0`	Cargo.toml

All dependencies 6

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

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	div-pow10	`—`	direct
crates.io	num-traits	`—`	direct
crates.io	serde	`—`	direct
crates.io	arbitrary	`—`	indirect
crates.io	libfuzzer-sys	`—`	indirect
crates.io	primitive-types	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

Raw JSON report machine-readable

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — 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

Related records