Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 03:33 UTC

crate-ci / escargot

Cargo API written in Paris

RustApache-2.0★ 56 stars⑂ 17 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗

crate-ci/escargot holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (57/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

crate-ciOrganization
78 followers27 public repossince Feb 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioescargot0.5.15772,15121339 days agocargopackaging

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 7 days ago
16.6/36Commit cadence24/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume87 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year87
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year24
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases21 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 339 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~152.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv0.5.15
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release339
mean_days_between_releases152.4
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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.2/60Stars56 stars
10/25Forks17 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars56
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
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
How it's scored
78.5/80Monthly downloads772,151 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesescargot
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads9,051,811
monthly_downloads772,151
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 81% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth16 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.807
How it's scored
30.4/42Issue resolution72% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance111/121 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs111
open_issues8
closed_issues21
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.724
closed_unmerged_prs10
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
13.6/25Owner reach78 followers of crate-ci
22.5/25Track record27 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers78
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincrate-ci
public_repos27
account_age_days3,076
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 339 days ago
20/20Version history21 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesescargot
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish339

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitedocs.rs/cargo
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagedocs.rs/cargo
docs_sitedocs.rs/cargo
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/11 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
6.8/7.5Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
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_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/32 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes10,291
source_files_sampled32
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
has_mcp_signalno
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

56GitHub stars
16contributors
87commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
8open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 03:33 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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/11 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
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioserde1.0.228Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.29Cargo.toml
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 47 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iolog0.4.29direct
crates.ioserde1.0.228direct
crates.ioserde_json1.0.89direct
crates.ioanyhow1.0.102indirect
crates.ioautomod1.0.17indirect
crates.iobitflags2.11.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.iofastrand2.3.0indirect
crates.iofoldhash0.1.5indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.2indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.15.5indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.16.1indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioid-arena2.3.0indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.13.0indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.4indirect
crates.iolazy_staticindirect
crates.ioleb128fmt0.1.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.182indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.3indirect
crates.ioprettyplease0.2.37indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.44indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.4indirect
crates.ioryu1.0.11indirect
crates.iosemver1.0.27indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.117indirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iounicode-xid0.2.6indirect
crates.iowasip21.0.1+wasi-0.2.4indirect
crates.iowasip30.4.0+wasi-0.3.0-rc-2026-01-06indirect
crates.iowasm-encoder0.244.0indirect
crates.iowasm-metadata0.244.0indirect
crates.iowasmparser0.244.0indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen0.46.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-core0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rust0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rust-macro0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-component0.244.0indirect
crates.iowit-parser0.244.0indirect
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.