Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-28 03:24 UTC

ZcashFoundation / redjubjub

A minimal RedJubjub implementation for use in Zebra.

RustCustom license★ 30 stars⑂ 24 forkssince Dec 2019View on GitHub ↗

ZcashFoundation/redjubjub holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (81/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Zcash FoundationOrganization · verified domain
148 followers72 public repossince Mar 2017

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioredjubjub0.9.0102,110122 days agocryptocryptographyjubjubredjubjubzcash

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume — 17 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year17
human_commit_share0.69
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 6 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~400.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tag0.9.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases400.8

Community & Adoption

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

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.7/60Stars — 30 stars
11.3/25Forks — 24 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks24
stars30
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
66.8/80Monthly downloads — 102,110 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesredjubjub
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads1,428,495
monthly_downloads102,110
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.364
How it's scored
40.6/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
17.1/30PR acceptance — 102/179 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs102
open_issues2
closed_issues56
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.966
closed_unmerged_prs77
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
15.6/25Owner reach — 148 followers of ZcashFoundation
25/25Track record — 72 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers148
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginZcashFoundation
public_repos72
account_age_days3,495

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 12 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesredjubjub
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/redjubjub
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/redjubjub
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsCargo.toml
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.3/40Legible commit history — 25 of 69 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.362
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
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)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 11 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 31 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.11
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.31
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes57,094
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

30GitHub stars
12contributors
17commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
6releases
2bus factor
2open 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
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/ZcashFoundation/redjubjub: run: repo unreachable: Get "https://api.github.com/repos/ZcashFoundation/redjubjub": internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: error in HTTP: dial tcp: lookup api.github.com on 127.0.0.11:53: server misbehaving); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 24 ⇿
0Stars
24Forks
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.

0481216201912020-022023-052026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 0

Each point covers 6 days.

Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioreddsa0.6.1Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_core0.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2Cargo.toml
crates.iozeroize1Cargo.toml
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iorand_core—direct
crates.ioreddsa—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.iothiserror—direct
crates.iozeroize—direct
crates.iobincode—indirect
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.iolazy_static—indirect
crates.ioproptest—indirect
crates.iorand—indirect
crates.iorand_chacha—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—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.

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.