Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-04 19:54 UTC

crossbeam-rs / crossbeam

Tools for concurrent programming in Rust

RustApache-2.0★ 8,537 stars⑂ 568 forkssince May 2015View on GitHub ↗

crossbeam-rs/crossbeam holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (58/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CrossbeamOrganization
122 followers8 public repossince Mar 2017

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
17.7/18Commit volume — 92 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year92
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 87 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 29 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~63.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count87
latest_release_tagcrossbeam-epoch-0.9.20
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release29
mean_days_between_releases63.1
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?

85Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 8,537 stars
22.9/25Forks — 568 forks
10.5/15Watchers — 80 watchers
Inputs used
forks568
stars8,537
watchers80
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 211,392,874 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescrossbeam, crossbeam-deque, crossbeam-epoch, crossbeam-queue, crossbeam-utils, crossbeam-channel, crossbeam-skiplist
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads2,915,378,676
monthly_downloads211,392,874
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 factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.467
How it's scored
32.3/42Issue resolution — 77% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance — 658/771 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs658
open_issues109
closed_issues362
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d21
prs_decided_30d21
issue_closed_ratio0.769
closed_unmerged_prs113
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15/25Owner reach — 122 followers of crossbeam-rs
18.9/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers122
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincrossbeam-rs
public_repos8
account_age_days3,434

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 7 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 29 days ago
20/20Version history — 43 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescrossbeam, crossbeam-deque, crossbeam-epoch, crossbeam-queue, crossbeam-utils, crossbeam-channel, crossbeam-skiplist
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish29

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssynchronization, concurrency, parallelism, threads, lock-free, data-structures, rust
has_wikino
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

79Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 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 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages19
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:crossbeam@0.8.4 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 19 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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.9/40Legible commit history — 65 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.691
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, crossbeam-channel/Cargo.toml, crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crossbeam-channel/Cargo.toml, crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/Cargo.toml, crossbeam-deque/Cargo.toml, crossbeam-epoch/Cargo.toml, crossbeam-queue/Cargo.toml, crossbeam-skiplist/Cargo.toml, crossbeam-utils/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 2/121 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes79,871
source_files_sampled121
oversized_source_files2
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files

Key facts

8,537GitHub stars
98contributors
92commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
87releases
2bus factor
109open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 568 ⇿
0Stars
568Forks
87Releases

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.

010020030040050060054862015-082021-022026-07
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 19:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests26 out of 26 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 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocrossbeam-channel0.5.10Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-deque0.8.4Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-epoch0.9.17Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-queue0.3.10Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.18Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.18crossbeam-channel/Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-epoch0.9.17crossbeam-deque/Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.18crossbeam-deque/Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.18crossbeam-epoch/Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.18crossbeam-queue/Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-epoch0.9.17crossbeam-skiplist/Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.18crossbeam-skiplist/Cargo.toml
crates.ioatomic-maybe-uninit0.3.4crossbeam-utils/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioatomic-maybe-uninitdirect
crates.iocrossbeam-channeldirect
crates.iocrossbeam-dequedirect
crates.iocrossbeam-epochdirect
crates.iocrossbeam-queuedirect
crates.iocrossbeam-utilsdirect
crates.ioatomicringindirect
crates.iobusindirect
crates.iofastrandindirect
crates.ioflumeindirect
crates.iofuturesindirect
crates.iolockfreeindirect
crates.ioloomindirect
crates.iompmcindirect
crates.iorustversionindirect
crates.iosignal-hookindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:crossbeam@0.8.4 pulls in 19 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.