Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 07:00 UTC

carverauto / arancini

High-performance BMP collector.

Rust · ShellMIT★ 4 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

carverauto/arancini holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated today. 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

Carver AutomationOrganization
28 followers44 public repossince Nov 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioarancini-lib0.7.56,40160 days agobgpbmpcollector
crates.ioarancini0.7.51860 days agobgpbmpcollector

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume159 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year159
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year30
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases3 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv0.7.5
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.1
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars4 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars4
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.8/80Monthly downloads6,419 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesarancini-lib, arancini
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads20,534
monthly_downloads6,419
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 45% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.451
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance18/18 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs18
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
10.5/25Owner reach28 followers of carverauto
23.3/25Track record44 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers28
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincarverauto
public_repos44
account_age_days2,061
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history6 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesarancini-lib, arancini
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/arancini-lib
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbgp, bgp-monitoring-protocol, bmp, io-uring, zero-copy
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/arancini-lib
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 14 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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.

78Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, openspec/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, openspec/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,967
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
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. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
52.4/55Manageable file sizes1/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes60,510
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

4GitHub stars
5contributors
159commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
3releases
2bus factor
0open 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 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 06:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 35
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioahash0.8arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow1.0arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iobgpkit-parser0.15arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.9.0arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iometrics0.24arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iorand0.9arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1arancini-lib/Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow1arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.ioasync-nats0.49arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iopostcard1.1arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iobgpkit-parser0.15arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iocapnp0.25.0arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.40arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.5.23arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap-verbosity-flag3.0.2arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iocore_affinity0.8arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossfire3.1arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures0.3.31arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iometrics0.24arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iometrics-exporter-prometheus0.18.0arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iomonoio0.2.4arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.ionum_cpus1.17arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iordkafka0.39arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.ioarancini-lib0.7.2arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.42.0arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio-graceful0.2.2arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3arancini/Cargo.toml
crates.iorustls0.23.32arancini/Cargo.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.

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 statisticscrates.io.