Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 09:10 UTC

asyncswap / lsp-bench

A benchmarking framework for Language Server Protocol (LSP) servers. Measures latency, correctness, and memory usage over JSON-RPC stdio.

RustMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

asyncswap/lsp-bench holds a health index of 38 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (54/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 112 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

38
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.

38
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 42 is calibrated to 38 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AsyncSwap LabsOrganization
5 followers10 public repossince Sep 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iolsp-benchpoints to another repo — not scored0.3.32315112 days agobenchmarklsplanguage-servercommand-line-utilitiesdevelopment-tools

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

52Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 112 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume133 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year133
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push112
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases15 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 112 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~8.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagv0.3.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release112
mean_days_between_releases8.4

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

46Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance14/14 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs14
open_issues0
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
5.6/25Owner reach5 followers of asyncswap
13.5/25Track record10 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginasyncswap
public_repos10
account_age_days1,073

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbenchmark, lsp
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate2.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages2
assessed_packages83
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 2
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 83 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.8/40Legible commit history69 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.69
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
36.7/55Manageable file sizes1/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes218,149
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2GitHub stars
1contributors
133commits, last 12 months
112days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • crates package 'lsp-bench' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mmsaki/solidity-lsp-benchmarks); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.7 / 10
2.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 09:10 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not 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
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioclap4Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_yaml0.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioindicatif0.17Cargo.toml
crates.ioconsole0.15Cargo.toml
crates.iosysinfo0.30Cargo.toml
crates.ioctrlc3Cargo.toml
All dependencies 83

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 75 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioclap4.5.58direct
crates.ioconsole0.15.11direct
crates.ioctrlc3.5.2direct
crates.ioindicatif0.17.11direct
crates.ioserde1.0.228direct
crates.ioserde_json1.0.149direct
crates.ioserde_yaml0.9.34+deprecateddirect
crates.iosysinfo0.30.13direct
crates.ioanstream0.6.21indirect
crates.ioanstyle1.0.13indirect
crates.ioanstyle-parse0.2.7indirect
crates.ioanstyle-query1.1.5indirect
crates.ioanstyle-wincon3.0.11indirect
crates.iobitflags2.11.1indirect
crates.ioblock20.6.2indirect
crates.iobumpalo3.19.1indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.iocfg_aliases0.2.1indirect
crates.ioclap_builder4.5.58indirect
crates.ioclap_derive4.5.55indirect
crates.ioclap_lex1.0.0indirect
crates.iocolorchoice1.0.4indirect
crates.iocore-foundation-sys0.8.7indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-deque0.8.6indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-epoch0.9.18indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.21indirect
crates.iodispatch20.3.1indirect
crates.ioeither1.15.0indirect
crates.ioencode_unicode1.0.0indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.16.1indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.13.0indirect
crates.iois_terminal_polyfill1.70.2indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.17indirect
crates.iojs-sys0.3.85indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.181indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.0indirect
crates.ionix0.31.2indirect
crates.iontapi0.4.3indirect
crates.ionumber_prefix0.4.0indirect
crates.ioobjc20.6.4indirect
crates.ioobjc2-encode4.1.0indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.3indirect
crates.ioonce_cell_polyfill1.70.2indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.13.1indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.44indirect
crates.iorayon1.11.0indirect
crates.iorayon-core1.13.0indirect
crates.iorustversion1.0.22indirect
crates.ioryu1.0.23indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.iostrsim0.11.1indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.114indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.23indirect
crates.iounicode-width0.2.2indirect
crates.iounsafe-libyaml0.2.11indirect
crates.ioutf8parse0.2.2indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.108indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro0.2.108indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro-support0.2.108indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-shared0.2.108indirect
crates.ioweb-time1.1.0indirect
crates.iowinapi0.3.9indirect
crates.iowinapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowinapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowindows0.52.0indirect
crates.iowindows-core0.52.0indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.59.0indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.20indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 83 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
crossbeam-epoch0.9.18indirectunknown10.9.20
number_prefix0.4.0indirectunknown1

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

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 statisticscrates.io.