Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-15 20:47 UTC

aws / aws-nitro-enclaves-image-format

This library provides the definition of the enclave image format (EIF) file used in AWS Nitro Enclaves.

RustApache-2.0★ 18 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Nov 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

aws/aws-nitro-enclaves-image-format holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

16,409 followers553 public repossince Aug 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioaws-nitro-enclaves-image-format0.7.014,81193 days agoawsenclavesnitro
crates.ioeif_build0.2.1522705 days agoawseifenclavesnitro

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume13 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share0.973
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases4 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~246.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv0.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases246.6
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20/60Stars18 stars
11.5/25Forks25 forks
6.2/15Watchers14 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars18
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
55.6/80Monthly downloads14,863 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesaws-nitro-enclaves-image-format, eif_build
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads388,575
monthly_downloads14,863
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?

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 39% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.389
How it's scored
12.6/42Issue resolution30% of issues closed
20.9/30PR acceptance32/46 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance6/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs32
open_issues7
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.3
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d6
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach16,409 followers of aws
25/25Track record553 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers16,409
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginaws
public_repos553
account_age_days5,100
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history9 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaws-nitro-enclaves-image-format, eif_build
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 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
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests10 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/aws-nitro-enclaves-image-format
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/aws-nitro-enclaves-image-format
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests10 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages21
affected_by_severitynone
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 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 21 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.3/40Legible commit history51 of 71 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.718
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, eif_build/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 73
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 73 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, eif_build/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.027
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes27,214
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

18GitHub stars
9contributors
13commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
4releases
2bus factor
7open 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 ★ / 25 ⇿
0Stars
25Forks
3Releases

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.

05101520252532022-062024-072026-08
Major 0Minor 3Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-15 20:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests10 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 26
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iosha20.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde>=1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ionum-traits0.2Cargo.toml
crates.ionum-derive0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iobyteorder1.3Cargo.toml
crates.iohex0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iocrc3.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-nitro-enclaves-cose0.5Cargo.toml
crates.ioopenssl0.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_cbor0.11Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-sdk-kms<=1.20Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-config<=1.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-types<=1.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-smithy-runtime1.8.6Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.20Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iolitemap=0.7.4Cargo.toml
crates.iozerofrom=0.1.5Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-nitro-enclaves-image-format0.6eif_build/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10eif_build/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde>=1.0eif_build/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0eif_build/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap~4.4eif_build/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4eif_build/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 23

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioaws-configdirect
crates.ioaws-nitro-enclaves-cosedirect
crates.ioaws-nitro-enclaves-image-formatdirect
crates.ioaws-sdk-kmsdirect
crates.ioaws-smithy-runtimedirect
crates.ioaws-typesdirect
crates.iobyteorderdirect
crates.iochronodirect
crates.ioclapdirect
crates.iocrcdirect
crates.iohexdirect
crates.iolitemap0.7.4direct
crates.ionum-derivedirect
crates.ionum-traitsdirect
crates.ioopenssldirect
crates.ioregexdirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_cbordirect
crates.ioserde_jsondirect
crates.iosha2direct
crates.iotokiodirect
crates.iozerofrom0.1.5direct
crates.iotempfileindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 21 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.