Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 18:14 UTC

bluurryy / bump-scope

A fast bump allocator that supports allocation scopes / checkpoints. Aka an arena for values of arbitrary types.

RustApache-2.0★ 75 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Mar 2024View on GitHub ↗

bluurryy/bump-scope holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (50/100). It was last updated 14 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

bluurryyPersonal account

5 followers39 public repossince Mar 2024

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	bump-scope	2.3.3	34,167	90	41 days ago	allocation allocator arena bump no-std memory-management

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 14 days ago
21.5/36	Commit cadence — 31/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 323 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	323
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	14
active_weeks_last_year	31

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 41 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~22.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	30
latest_release_tag	v2.3.3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	41
mean_days_between_releases	22.5

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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

33At Risk

How it's scored

30.3/60	Stars — 75 stars
2.5/25	Forks — 3 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	3
stars	75
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

76Good

How it's scored

60.4/80	Monthly downloads — 34,167 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	bump-scope
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	297,552
monthly_downloads	34,167
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?

53Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5	Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	2
top_contributor_share	0.999

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good

How it's scored

38.7/42	Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
29.7/30	PR acceptance — 92/93 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	92
open_issues	4
closed_issues	47
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.922
closed_unmerged_prs	1
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

40Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5.6/25	Owner reach — 5 followers of bluurryy
16.5/25	Track record — 39 public repos, account ~2 yr old

Inputs used

followers	5
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	bluurryy
public_repos	39
account_age_days	884

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 41 days ago
20/20	Version history — 90 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	bump-scope
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	41

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — rustfmt.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/bump-scope
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/bump-scope
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	4
affected_packages	4
assessed_packages	90
unassessed_packages	4
affected_by_severity	unknown 4
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 90 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

70Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — rustfmt.toml
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	justfile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, crates/callgrind-benches/Cargo.toml, crates/callgrind-benches/benches-lib/Cargo.toml, crates/fuzzing-support/Cargo.toml, crates/test-hashbrown/Cargo.toml, crates/test-no-panic/Cargo.toml, crates/tests-from-std/Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
52.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 9/210 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	138,479
source_files_sampled	210
oversized_source_files	9

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

75GitHub stars

2contributors

323commits, last 12 months

14days since last push

30releases

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 ★ / 3 ⇿

0Stars

3Forks

20Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 6Patch 13

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10

5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 18:14 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
10	CI-Tests	3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	26 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	allocator-api2-02	`0.2.21`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	allocator-api2-03	`0.3.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	allocator-api2-04	`0.4.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	bytemuck	`1.23.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1.0.228`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	zerocopy-08	`0.8.14`	Cargo.toml

All dependencies 94

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 92 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	bytemuck	`1.24.0`	direct
crates.io	serde	`1.0.228`	direct
crates.io	allocator-api2	`—`	indirect
crates.io	allocator-api2	`0.2.21`	indirect
crates.io	allocator-api2	`0.3.1`	indirect
crates.io	allocator-api2	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	anstream	`0.6.21`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle	`1.0.13`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle-parse	`0.2.7`	indirect
crates.io	arbitrary	`1.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	arrayvec	`0.7.6`	indirect
crates.io	bincode	`1.3.3`	indirect
crates.io	blink-alloc	`—`	indirect
crates.io	blink-alloc	`0.3.1`	indirect
crates.io	bumpalo	`—`	indirect
crates.io	bumpalo	`3.20.2`	indirect
crates.io	cc	`1.2.49`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	colorchoice	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-deque	`0.8.6`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-epoch	`0.9.18`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-utils	`0.8.21`	indirect
crates.io	derive_arbitrary	`1.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	derive_more	`2.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	derive_more-impl	`2.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	dissimilar	`1.0.10`	indirect
crates.io	either	`1.15.0`	indirect
crates.io	env_filter	`0.1.4`	indirect
crates.io	env_logger	`0.11.8`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	expect-test	`1.5.1`	indirect
crates.io	fast-glob	`1.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	find-msvc-tools	`0.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	foldhash	`0.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.3.4`	indirect
crates.io	glob	`0.3.3`	indirect
crates.io	gungraun	`0.18.1`	indirect
crates.io	gungraun-macros	`0.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	gungraun-runner	`0.18.1`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.16.1`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`2.12.1`	indirect
crates.io	is_terminal_polyfill	`1.70.2`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.15`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	jobserver	`0.1.34`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.178`	indirect
crates.io	libfuzzer-sys	`0.4.10`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.29`	indirect
crates.io	markdown-tables	`0.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.6`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	paste	`—`	indirect
crates.io	paste	`1.0.15`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro-error-attr2	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro-error2	`2.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.103`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.106`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.42`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.45`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`5.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	rangemap	`1.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	rayon	`1.11.0`	indirect
crates.io	rayon-core	`1.13.0`	indirect
crates.io	rustc_version	`0.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	ryu	`1.0.20`	indirect
crates.io	semver	`1.0.27`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.145`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.149`	indirect
crates.io	serde_spanned	`1.0.3`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`1.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.111`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.117`	indirect
crates.io	target-triple	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	termcolor	`1.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	toml	`0.9.8`	indirect
crates.io	toml_datetime	`0.7.3`	indirect
crates.io	toml_parser	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	toml_writer	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	trybuild	`1.0.114`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.22`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	utf8parse	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	wasip2	`1.0.1+wasi-0.2.4`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-util	`0.1.11`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	winnow	`0.7.14`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen	`0.46.0`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy	`0.8.31`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy-derive	`0.8.31`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.21`	indirect

Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 90 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
bincode	`1.3.3`	indirect	unknown	1	—
crossbeam-epoch	`0.9.18`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.9.20`
paste	`1.0.15`	indirect	unknown	1	—
proc-macro-error2	`2.0.1`	indirect	unknown	1	—

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records