Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 00:13 UTC

ccp-project / portus

A congestion control plane. (SIGCOMM '18)

Rust · Makefile · PythonISC★ 84 stars⑂ 12 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

ccp-project/portus holds a health index of 35 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (60/100) and lowest on Vitality (21/100). It was last updated 318 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ccp-projectOrganization

6 followers19 public repossince Apr 2018

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
crates.io	portus	0.9.0	88	17	318 days ago
crates.io	pyportus	0.6.0	4	3	1383 days ago
crates.io	portus_export	0.2.0	90	2	1865 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

14Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 318 daysautomated commits excludedreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedcontinuous integration broken

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

3.6/36	Push recency — last push 318 days ago
0.7/36	Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18	Commit volume — 10 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	10
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	318
active_weeks_last_year	1

Release discipline

32At Risk

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 8 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,164 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~247.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	8
latest_release_tag	v0.8.0
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	1,164
mean_days_between_releases	247.7

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?

42Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

40Weak

How it's scored

31.1/60	Stars — 84 stars
8.7/25	Forks — 12 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	12
stars	84
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 (ISC)
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	1
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

33At Risk

How it's scored

26.2/80	Monthly downloads — 92 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	portus, pyportus
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	30,546
monthly_downloads	92
unverified_packages_excluded	portus_export

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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 81% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.814

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23/30	PR acceptance — 36/47 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	36
open_issues	0
closed_issues	56
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	11
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

58Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
6.1/25	Owner reach — 6 followers of ccp-project
21.5/25	Track record — 19 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	6
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	ccp-project
public_repos	19
account_age_days	3,061

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 318 days ago
20/20	Version history — 17 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	portus, pyportus, portus_export
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	318

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

51Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://ccp-project.github.io/
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://ccp-project.github.io/
docs_site	https://ccp-project.github.io/
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?

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no 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
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	3.5

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

Dependency advisories

77Good

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
11/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: time 0.1.45 (moderate 6.2), paste 0.1.18 (unknown), stdweb 0.4.20 (unknown)
30.7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2,302 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	4
affected_packages	3
assessed_packages	103
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	moderate 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages	0

Matched the crates:portus@0.9.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 103 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.

58Moderate · 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)
27.2/40	Legible commit history — 51 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.51
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, src/ipc/test-nl-kernel/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
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	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile, src/ipc/test-nl-kernel/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, portus_export/Cargo.toml, python/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/50 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	49,376
source_files_sampled	50
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 — example

Inputs used

example_dirs	example
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

84GitHub stars

4contributors

10commits, last 12 months

318days since last push

8releases

1bus factor

0open issues

crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿

0Stars

12Forks

7Releases

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 2Patch 5

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10

3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 00:13 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no 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
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 25

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	byteorder	`1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	crossbeam	`0.8`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	libc	`0.2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	nix	`0.30`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	nom	`7`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	portus_export	`0.2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	tracing	`0.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	clap	`4`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	itertools	`0.10`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	quote	`1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	regex	`1.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	toml	`0.5`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	libloading	`0.7`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	walkdir	`2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	syn	`1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	colored	`2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	time	`0.2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	quote	`1`	portus_export/Cargo.toml
crates.io	syn	`1`	portus_export/Cargo.toml
crates.io	portus	`—`	python/Cargo.toml
crates.io	simple-signal	`1`	python/Cargo.toml
crates.io	pyo3	`0.17`	python/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tracing	`0.1`	python/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tracing-subscriber	`0.2`	python/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	byteorder	`—`	direct
crates.io	clap	`—`	direct
crates.io	colored	`—`	direct
crates.io	crossbeam	`—`	direct
crates.io	itertools	`—`	direct
crates.io	libc	`—`	direct
crates.io	libloading	`—`	direct
crates.io	nix	`—`	direct
crates.io	nom	`—`	direct
crates.io	portus_export	`—`	direct
crates.io	proc-macro2	`—`	direct
crates.io	pyo3	`—`	direct
crates.io	quote	`—`	direct
crates.io	regex	`—`	direct
crates.io	simple-signal	`—`	direct
crates.io	syn	`—`	direct
crates.io	time	`—`	direct
crates.io	toml	`—`	direct
crates.io	tracing	`—`	direct
crates.io	tracing-subscriber	`—`	direct
crates.io	walkdir	`—`	direct
crates.io	anyhow	`—`	indirect
crates.io	libccp	`—`	indirect
crates.io	minion	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 3

Installing crates:portus@0.9.0 pulls in 103 packages, direct and transitive: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
time	`0.1.45`	indirect	moderate	2	`0.2.23`
paste	`0.1.18`	indirect	unknown	1	—
stdweb	`0.4.20`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.4.21-0`

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