Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-06 13:15 UTC

alexforster / pdu

Small, fast, and correct L2/L3/L4 packet parser.

RustApache-2.0★ 69 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Dec 2019View on GitHub ↗

alexforster/pdu holds a health index of 45 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (52/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (40/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts 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 47 is calibrated to 45 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Alex ForsterPersonal account
52 followers28 public repossince Jul 2009@cloudflare

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.iopdu1.5.19,429141 day agoethernetgreiptcpudpnetwork-programmingparsingno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

50Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume — 5 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 8 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,701 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~99 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tag1.4.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,701
mean_days_between_releases99
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.7/60Stars — 69 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars69
watchers2
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_servicesshields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53/80Monthly downloads — 9,429 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespdu
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads325,293
monthly_downloads9,429
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
14/42Issue resolution — 33% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 4/4 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs4
open_issues4
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.333
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.4/25Owner reach — 52 followers of alexforster
22.6/25Track record — 28 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers52
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginalexforster
public_repos28
account_age_days6,233
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 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespdu
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://crates.io/crates/pdu
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, rustlang, parser
has_wikino
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/pdu
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 4 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): dangerous_workflow, packaging, pinned_dependencies, signed_releases, token_permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages27
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:pdu@1.5.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 27 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.9/40Legible commit history — 8 of 43 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.186
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 43
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes26,832
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

69GitHub stars
1contributors
5commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
7Releases

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.

0246810121112020-042023-042026-04
Major 0Minor 4Patch 3

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-06 13:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobase16indirect
crates.iohonggfuzzindirect
crates.iopcapindirect
crates.ioroxmltreeindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:pdu@1.5.1 pulls in 27 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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

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 statisticscrates.io.