Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 11:43 UTC

canop / bacon

background code checker

RustAGPL-3.0★ 3,323 stars⑂ 121 forkssince Oct 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#rust#terminal#compilation#check#cargo

canop/bacon holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Security (31/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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

Denys SéguretPersonal account
729 followers174 public repossince Feb 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iobacon3.24.06,1081063 days agobackgroundcompilerinotifyrustwatchcommand-line-utilitiesdevelopment-tools

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

86Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
21.5/36Commit cadence — 31/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 114 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year114
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year31

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 74 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~36.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count74
latest_release_tagv3.24.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases36.7
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?

72Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

80Excellent
How it's scored
57.1/60Stars — 3,323 stars
17.3/25Forks — 121 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks121
stars3,323
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

63Moderate
How it's scored
50.5/80Monthly downloads — 6,108 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbacon
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads313,131
monthly_downloads6,108
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 54 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled54
top_contributor_share0.854

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good
How it's scored
33.9/42Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 157/175 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs157
open_issues51
closed_issues214
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.808
closed_unmerged_prs18
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

70Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20.6/25Owner reach — 729 followers of Canop
25/25Track record — 174 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers729
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginCanop
public_repos174
account_age_days5,632
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 106 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbacon
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

41Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://dystroy.org/bacon
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, terminal, compilation, check, cargo
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://dystroy.org/bacon
docs_sitehttps://dystroy.org/bacon
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

29At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/122 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes40,552
source_files_sampled122
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3,323GitHub stars
54contributors
114commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
74releases
1bus factor
51open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 11:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
1Vulnerabilities9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 26
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioarboard3.4Cargo.toml
crates.iocargo_metadata0.19Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap-help1.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap_complete4.6Cargo.toml
crates.iocli-log2.1Cargo.toml
crates.iocrokey1.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioctrlc3.4Cargo.toml
crates.iodirectories-next2.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iogix0.73Cargo.toml
crates.ioglob0.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioiq0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy-regex3.6Cargo.toml
crates.ionotify8.2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopaste1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopretty_assertions1.4Cargo.toml
crates.iorodio0.21Cargo.toml
crates.iorustc-hash2Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioschemars1Cargo.toml
crates.iotermimad0.35Cargo.toml
crates.iotoml0.9Cargo.toml
crates.iounicode-width0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iovte0.15Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with canop/bacon. Read them side by side →

98boa-dev/boaBoa is an embeddable Javascript engine written in Rust.Exceptional96slint-ui/slintSlint is an open-source declarative GUI toolkit to build native user interfaces for Rust, C++, JavaScript, or Python apps.Exceptional96web-infra-dev/rspackFast Rust-based bundler for the web with a modernized webpack API 🦀Exceptional99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional99rust-lang/rustEmpowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.Exceptional98ZcashFoundation/zebraZcash - Financial Privacy in Rust 🦓Exceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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