Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 14:55 UTC

XAMPPRocky / octocrab

A modern, extensible GitHub API Client for Rust.

RustCustom license★ 1,438 stars⑂ 372 forkssince Apr 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

XAMPPRocky/octocrab holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (63/100). It was last updated 43 days ago. 6 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

XAMPPRockyPersonal account
793 followers143 public repossince May 2013

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.iooctocrab0.54.1736,63711943 days agogithubgithub-api

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 43 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 103 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year103
human_commit_share0.78
days_since_last_push43
active_weeks_last_year29

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 70 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 43 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~12.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count70
latest_release_tagv0.54.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release43
mean_days_between_releases12.9
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?

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

76Good
How it's scored
51.2/60Stars — 1,438 stars
21.4/25Forks — 372 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks372
stars1,438
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional
How it's scored
78.2/80Monthly downloads — 736,637 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesoctocrab
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads17,160,310
monthly_downloads736,637
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?

82Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

87Excellent
How it's scored
48.6/54Bus factor — 6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 33% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 97 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor6
contributors_sampled97
top_contributor_share0.331

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
25.9/42Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed
25.2/30PR acceptance — 538/641 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs538
open_issues101
closed_issues163
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.617
closed_unmerged_prs103
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

70Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20.8/25Owner reach — 793 followers of XAMPPRocky
25/25Track record — 143 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers793
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginXAMPPRocky
public_repos143
account_age_days4,858
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 43 days ago
20/20Version history — 119 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesoctocrab
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish43

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

62Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 22 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/octocrab
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/octocrab
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

63Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 22 out of 29 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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 77 of 78 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.987
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 2/363 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes75,729
source_files_sampled363
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — examples/github_schema.graphql, examples/issues_query.graphql
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesexamples/github_schema.graphql, examples/issues_query.graphql
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1,438GitHub stars
97contributors
103commits, last 12 months
43days since last push
70releases
6bus factor
101open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 372 ⇿
0Stars
372Forks
70Releases

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.

012525037536762020-052023-072026-08
Major 0Minor 36Patch 31

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10
6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 14:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
7CI-Tests22 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained9 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 35
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioasync-trait0.1.50Cargo.toml
crates.ioarc-swap1.3.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.19Cargo.toml
crates.ioweb-time1.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iocfg-if1.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures0.3.15Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-core0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-util0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iogetrandom0.2.15Cargo.toml
crates.iojsonwebtoken10Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp1.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp-body1.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp-body-util0.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper1.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper-rustls0.27.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp-serde2.1.1Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper-timeout0.5.1Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper-tls0.6.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper-util0.1.3Cargo.toml
crates.iopercent-encoding2.2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopin-project1.0.12Cargo.toml
crates.iorustls0.23Cargo.toml
crates.iosecrecy0.10.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.126Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0.64Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_path_to_error0.1.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_urlencoded0.7.1Cargo.toml
crates.iosnafu0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.17.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotower0.5.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotower-http0.6.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1.37Cargo.toml
crates.iourl2.2.2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 35 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioarc-swap—direct
crates.ioasync-trait—direct
crates.iobase64—direct
crates.iobytes—direct
crates.iocfg-if—direct
crates.iochrono—direct
crates.iofutures—direct
crates.iofutures-core—direct
crates.iofutures-util—direct
crates.iogetrandom—direct
crates.iohttp—direct
crates.iohttp-body—direct
crates.iohttp-body-util—direct
crates.iohttp-serde—direct
crates.iohyper—direct
crates.iohyper-rustls—direct
crates.iohyper-timeout—direct
crates.iohyper-tls—direct
crates.iohyper-util—direct
crates.iojsonwebtoken—direct
crates.iopercent-encoding—direct
crates.iopin-project—direct
crates.iorustls—direct
crates.iosecrecy—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.ioserde_path_to_error—direct
crates.ioserde_urlencoded—direct
crates.iosnafu—direct
crates.iotokio—direct
crates.iotower—direct
crates.iotower-http—direct
crates.iotracing—direct
crates.iourl—direct
crates.ioweb-time—direct
crates.iocargo_metadata—indirect
crates.iocrypto_box—indirect
crates.iographql_client—indirect
crates.iopretty_assertions—indirect
crates.iotokio-test—indirect
crates.iowiremock—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

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with XAMPPRocky/octocrab. Read them side by side →

98google/go-githubGo library for accessing the GitHub v3 APIExceptional94PyGithub/PyGithubTyped interactions with the GitHub API v3Exceptional93octokit/webhooks.netGitHub webhook events toolset for .NETExceptional91gitify-app/gitifyGit notifications on your menu bar. Available on macOS, Windows & Linux.Excellent89sigmavirus24/github3.py Hi, I'm a library for interacting with GItHub's REST API in a convenient and ergonomic way. I work on Python 3.6+.Excellent78octokit/octokit.rbRuby toolkit for the GitHub APIGood

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.