Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-13 02:43 UTC

Zondax / ledger-namada

C · TypeScript · RustApache-2.0★ 12 stars⑂ 10 forkssince Nov 2022View on GitHub ↗

Zondax/ledger-namada holds a health index of 45 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). It was last updated 487 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

45
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.

45
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

zondaxOrganization · verified domain
122 followers376 public repossince Dec 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmintegration-testspoints to another repo — not scored0.0.12413779 days agofsisomorphiclayers
crates.iorslib0.1.022416 days ago—

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

25At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 487 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push487
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 52 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 487 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count52
latest_release_tagv3.0.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release487
mean_days_between_releases16.5

Community & Adoption

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

38Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
8/25Forks — 10 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks10
stars12
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.478
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
21.4/30PR acceptance — 75/105 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 26/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs75
open_issues2
closed_issues31
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.939
closed_unmerged_prs30
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
15/25Owner reach — 122 followers of Zondax
25/25Track record — 376 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers122
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginZondax
public_repos376
account_age_days3,230
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 416 days ago
12/20Version history — 2 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrslib
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish416

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/rslib
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/rslib
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 26/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
29.9/40Legible commit history — 56 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.56
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, app/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.js
11/11Static type checking — tests_zemu/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, app/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstests_zemu/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsapp/rust/Cargo.toml, app/ztruct/Cargo.toml, rs/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C (statically typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 1/98 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes120,020
source_files_sampled98
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

12GitHub stars
7contributors
0commits, last 12 months
487days since last push
52releases
2bus factor
2open issues
crates.io, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'ledger-namada-rs' from its registry
  • npm package 'integration-tests' points at a different repository (https://github.com/doug-wade/iso-fs); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • Could not fetch crates package 'ztruct' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 10 ⇿
0Stars
10Forks
19Releases

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.

02468101012023-092024-012024-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 16
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-13 02:43 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 26/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 23
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioledger-transport0.10.0rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioledger-zondax-generic0.10.0rs/Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror1.0.30rs/Cargo.toml
crates.iobyteorder1.4.3rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost0.11.5rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost-types0.11.6rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioleb1280.2.5rs/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10.6rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioed25519-dalek2.1.0rs/Cargo.toml
crates.iobincode1.3.3rs/Cargo.toml
npm@zondax/ledger-namada../jstests_zemu/package.json
npm@zondax/zemu^0.55.3tests_zemu/package.json
crates.ioztruct*app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iojubjub0.10.0app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaes0.7app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iobinary-ff10.2app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioblake2s_simd0.5app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioblake2b_simd0.5app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iobyteorder1.5app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4app/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioproc-macro21app/ztruct/Cargo.toml
crates.iosyn2app/ztruct/Cargo.toml
crates.ioquote1.0app/ztruct/Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 — npm, crates.io.