Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 05:45 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★ 19 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Nov 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

aws/aws-nitro-enclaves-image-format holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (74/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (46/100). It was last updated 36 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Amazon Web ServicesOrganization · verified domain
16,830 followers552 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-format0.7.011,717936 days agoawsenclavesnitro
crates.ioeif_build0.2.14212738 days agoawseifenclavesnitro

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

55Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 36 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume — 13 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 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_push36
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 36 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~246.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv0.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release36
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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.4/60Stars — 19 stars
11.5/25Forks — 25 forks
6.2/15Watchers — 14 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars19
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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
54.5/80Monthly downloads — 12,138 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesaws-nitro-enclaves-image-format, eif_build
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads399,890
monthly_downloads12,138
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?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 39% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project 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 resolution — 30% of issues closed
20.9/30PR acceptance — 32/46 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs32
open_issues7
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.3
closed_unmerged_prs14
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
25/25Owner reach — 16,830 followers of aws
25/25Track record — 552 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers16,830
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginaws
public_repos552
account_age_days5,134

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 36 days ago
20/20Version history — 9 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaws-nitro-enclaves-image-format, eif_build
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish36

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 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 site — https://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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
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_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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no 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.

51Moderate · 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.aws.amazon.com/llms.txt)
38.3/40Legible commit history — 51 of 71 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.aws.amazon.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.718
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, eif_build/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated 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 73
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 73 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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 code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes27,214
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

19GitHub stars
9contributors
13commits, last 12 months
36days 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 · 2026-09-18 05:44 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-config—direct
crates.ioaws-nitro-enclaves-cose—direct
crates.ioaws-nitro-enclaves-image-format—direct
crates.ioaws-sdk-kms—direct
crates.ioaws-smithy-runtime—direct
crates.ioaws-types—direct
crates.iobyteorder—direct
crates.iochrono—direct
crates.ioclap—direct
crates.iocrc—direct
crates.iohex—direct
crates.iolitemap0.7.4direct
crates.ionum-derive—direct
crates.ionum-traits—direct
crates.ioopenssl—direct
crates.ioregex—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioserde_cbor—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.iosha2—direct
crates.iotokio—direct
crates.iozerofrom0.1.5direct
crates.iotempfile—indirect
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io.