Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-11 08:19 UTC

brendanzab / codespan

Beautiful diagnostic reporting for text-based programming languages.

RustApache-2.0★ 1,295 stars⑂ 68 forkssince Feb 2018View on GitHub ↗

#error-reporting #programming-languages #source-code #rust #diagnostics #terminal

brendanzab/codespan holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (83/100) and lowest on Vitality (42/100). It was last updated 163 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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Brendan ZabarauskasPersonal account

861 followers112 public repossince Mar 2011@yeslogic

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	codespan	0.13.1	689,261	24	292 days ago	diagnostics serialization source-location structures tracking compilers encoding
crates.io	codespan-lsp	0.13.1	31,003	22	292 days ago	codespan lsp compilers encoding
crates.io	codespan-reporting	0.13.1	7,619,149	25	292 days ago	diagnostic-reporting command-line-interface compilers

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

42Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

23At Risk

How it's scored

9.9/36	Push recency — last push 163 days ago
3.5/36	Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18	Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	11
human_commit_share	0.9
days_since_last_push	163
active_weeks_last_year	5

Release discipline

70Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 3 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 292 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~106.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	3
latest_release_tag	release/codespan=0.13.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	292
mean_days_between_releases	106.9

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?

83Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

71Good

How it's scored

50.5/60	Stars — 1,295 stars
15.2/25	Forks — 68 forks
5.6/15	Watchers — 11 watchers

Inputs used

forks	68
stars	1,295
watchers	11
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 8,339,413 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	codespan, codespan-lsp, codespan-reporting
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	139,775,973
monthly_downloads	8,339,413
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?

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 41 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	41
top_contributor_share	0.69

Issue & PR responsiveness

71Good

How it's scored

29.8/42	Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
24.1/30	PR acceptance — 234/291 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 15/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

merged_prs	234
open_issues	34
closed_issues	83
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.709
closed_unmerged_prs	57
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

70Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
21.1/25	Owner reach — 861 followers of brendanzab
25/25	Track record — 112 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	861
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	brendanzab
public_repos	112
account_age_days	5,614

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

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 292 days ago
20/20	Version history — 25 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	codespan, codespan-lsp, codespan-reporting
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	292

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

56Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
8/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/codespan
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 6 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	error-reporting, programming-languages, source-code, rust, diagnostics, terminal
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/codespan
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?

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

33At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1/2.5	CI-Tests — 9 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 15/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	3.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	12
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:codespan@0.13.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 12 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

27At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
27.3/40	Legible commit history — 46 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.511
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, codespan-lsp/Cargo.toml, codespan-reporting/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
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
8/8	Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, codespan-lsp/Cargo.toml, codespan-reporting/Cargo.toml, codespan/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.09

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/21 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	42,613
source_files_sampled	21
oversized_source_files	0

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

1,295GitHub stars

41contributors

11commits, last 12 months

163days since last push

3releases

1bus factor

34open 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 ★ / 68 ⇿

0Stars

68Forks

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.

Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10

3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-11 08:18 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4	CI-Tests	9 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5	Code-Review	Found 15/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10	Contributors	project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
0	Dangerous-Workflow	dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	codespan-reporting	`0.13.1`	codespan-lsp/Cargo.toml
crates.io	lsp-types	`>=0.84, <0.92`	codespan-lsp/Cargo.toml
crates.io	url	`2`	codespan-lsp/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1`	codespan-reporting/Cargo.toml
crates.io	termcolor	`1.0.4`	codespan-reporting/Cargo.toml
crates.io	unicode-width	`>=0.1,<0.3`	codespan-reporting/Cargo.toml
crates.io	codespan-reporting	`0.13.1`	codespan/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1`	codespan/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 100

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 89 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	codespan-reporting	`—`	direct
crates.io	lsp-types	`—`	direct
crates.io	lsp-types	`0.91.1`	direct
crates.io	serde	`—`	direct
crates.io	serde	`1.0.219`	direct
crates.io	termcolor	`—`	direct
crates.io	termcolor	`1.4.1`	direct
crates.io	unicode-width	`—`	direct
crates.io	unicode-width	`0.1.14`	direct
crates.io	url	`—`	direct
crates.io	url	`2.5.4`	direct
crates.io	anyhow	`—`	indirect
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.98`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`1.3.2`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.9.1`	indirect
crates.io	cc	`1.2.29`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`0.1.10`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	console	`0.15.11`	indirect
crates.io	dirs-next	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	dirs-sys-next	`0.1.2`	indirect
crates.io	displaydoc	`0.2.5`	indirect
crates.io	encode_unicode	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	form_urlencoded	`1.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.2.16`	indirect
crates.io	icu_collections	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	icu_locale_core	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	icu_normalizer	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	icu_normalizer_data	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	icu_properties	`2.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	icu_properties_data	`2.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	icu_provider	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	idna	`1.0.3`	indirect
crates.io	idna_adapter	`1.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	insta	`—`	indirect
crates.io	insta	`1.43.1`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.15`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.174`	indirect
crates.io	libredox	`0.1.4`	indirect
crates.io	litemap	`0.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.27`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.5`	indirect
crates.io	nix	`0.18.0`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	peg	`—`	indirect
crates.io	peg	`0.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	peg-macros	`0.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	peg-runtime	`0.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	percent-encoding	`2.3.1`	indirect
crates.io	pico-args	`—`	indirect
crates.io	pico-args	`0.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	potential_utf	`0.1.2`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.95`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.40`	indirect
crates.io	redox_users	`0.4.6`	indirect
crates.io	rustyline	`—`	indirect
crates.io	rustyline	`6.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	ryu	`1.0.20`	indirect
crates.io	scopeguard	`1.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.219`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.140`	indirect
crates.io	serde_repr	`0.1.20`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`1.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	similar	`2.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	smallvec	`1.15.1`	indirect
crates.io	stable_deref_trait	`1.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.104`	indirect
crates.io	synstructure	`0.13.2`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror	`1.0.69`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`1.0.69`	indirect
crates.io	tinystr	`0.8.1`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-segmentation	`1.12.0`	indirect
crates.io	unindent	`—`	indirect
crates.io	unindent	`0.1.11`	indirect
crates.io	utf8_iter	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	utf8parse	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	wasi	`0.11.1+wasi-snapshot-preview1`	indirect
crates.io	winapi	`0.3.9`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-util	`0.1.9`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.59.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-targets	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	writeable	`0.6.1`	indirect
crates.io	yoke	`0.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	yoke-derive	`0.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	zerofrom	`0.1.6`	indirect
crates.io	zerofrom-derive	`0.1.6`	indirect
crates.io	zerotrie	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	zerovec	`0.11.2`	indirect
crates.io	zerovec-derive	`0.11.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:codespan@0.13.1 pulls in 12 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

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 v0.31.0 — 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