Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-12 17:51 UTC

cooperlees / monitord

Parse systemd stats via dbus + varlink stating components health by exposing local systemd telemetry

RustGPL-2.0★ 41 stars⑂ 21 forkssince Sep 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

cooperlees/monitord holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (46/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Cooper LeesPersonal account
189 followers67 public repossince Dec 2012CLC

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.iomonitord0.26.12,014452 days agonetwork-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

84Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 102 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year102
human_commit_share0.92
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year29

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 43 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~17.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count43
latest_release_tag0.26.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases17.7

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

37Weak
How it's scored
26/60Stars — 41 stars
10.8/25Forks — 21 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks21
stars41
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

55Moderate
How it's scored
44.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,014 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmonitord
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads76,315
monthly_downloads2,014
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)

32At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.861

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good
How it's scored
37.5/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
27.2/30PR acceptance — 143/158 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs143
open_issues4
closed_issues33
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.892
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

64Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.4/25Owner reach — 189 followers of cooperlees
25/25Track record — 67 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers189
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logincooperlees
public_repos67
account_age_days4,993
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 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 45 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmonitord
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

44Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/monitord
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/monitord
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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.

70Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

80Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
34.8/40Legible commit history — 60 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.652
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,908

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 50 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.5
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.08

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 3/183 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes166,481
source_files_sampled183
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

41GitHub stars
17contributors
102commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
43releases
1bus factor
4open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 21 ⇿
0Stars
21Forks
33Releases

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.

048121620242112023-082025-022026-07
Major 0Minor 19Patch 14

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-12 17:51 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
10CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 24
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioconfigparser3.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-util0.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioindexmap2.14Cargo.toml
crates.ioint-enum1.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_repr0.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_tuple1.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iostruct-field-names-as-array0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum0.28Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum_macros0.28Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.52.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-core0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-glog0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iouzers0.12Cargo.toml
crates.iozbus5.10.0Cargo.toml
crates.iozvariant5.10.0Cargo.toml
crates.iozvariant_derive5.10.0Cargo.toml
crates.iozlink0.4.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 26

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 24 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioanyhow—direct
crates.ioclap—direct
crates.ioconfigparser—direct
crates.iofutures-util—direct
crates.ioindexmap—direct
crates.ioint-enum—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.ioserde_repr—direct
crates.ioserde_tuple—direct
crates.iostruct-field-names-as-array—direct
crates.iostrum—direct
crates.iostrum_macros—direct
crates.iothiserror—direct
crates.iotokio—direct
crates.iotracing—direct
crates.iotracing-core—direct
crates.iotracing-glog—direct
crates.iotracing-subscriber—direct
crates.iouzers—direct
crates.iozbus—direct
crates.iozlink—direct
crates.iozvariant—direct
crates.iozvariant_derive—direct
crates.ioprocfs—indirect
crates.iotempfile—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 cooperlees/monitord. Read them side by side →

98ZcashFoundation/zebraZcash - Financial Privacy in Rust 🦓Exceptional98svix/svix-webhooksThe open source and enterprise-ready webhooks service 🦀Exceptional98tokio-rs/tokioA runtime for writing reliable asynchronous applications with Rust. Provides I/O, networking, scheduling, timers, ...Exceptional97rustls/rustlsA modern TLS library in RustExceptional96quinn-rs/quinnAsync-friendly QUIC implementation in RustExceptional96eclipse-zenoh/zenohzenoh unifies data in motion, data in-use, data at rest and computations. It carefully blends traditional pub/sub with geo-distributed storages, queries and computations, while retaining a level of time and space efficiency that is well beyond any of the mainstream stacks.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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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