Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-11 07:42 UTC

crossterm-rs / crossterm

Cross platform terminal library rust

RustMIT★ 4,176 stars⑂ 403 forkssince Jan 2018View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#cross-platform #terminal #tui #console #cursor #input #color

crossterm-rs/crossterm holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (85/100) and lowest on Vitality (61/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

crossterm-rsOrganization

40 followers11 public repossince Sep 2019

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	Tags
crates.io	crossterm	0.29.0	13,663,541	70	492 days ago	cli color event input terminal command-line-utilities command-line-interface

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

67Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
7.6/36	Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
13.3/18	Commit volume — 29 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	29
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	11

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 36 releases published
7.2/36	Release recency — latest release 492 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~128.2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	36
latest_release_tag	0.29
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	492
mean_days_between_releases	128.2

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

Popularity & adoption

88Excellent

How it's scored

58.7/60	Stars — 4,176 stars
21.7/25	Forks — 403 forks
7.5/15	Watchers — 23 watchers

Inputs used

forks	403
stars	4,176
watchers	23
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	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	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 13,663,541 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	crossterm
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	171,575,001
monthly_downloads	13,663,541

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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 58% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	100
top_contributor_share	0.585

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good

How it's scored

28.9/42	Issue resolution — 69% of issues closed
26.9/30	PR acceptance — 446/498 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	446
open_issues	168
closed_issues	369
prs_merged_7d	5
prs_decided_7d	5
prs_merged_30d	19
prs_decided_30d	21
issue_closed_ratio	0.687
closed_unmerged_prs	52
first_time_authors_30d	5
first_time_prs_merged_30d	5
first_time_prs_decided_30d	5

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
11.6/25	Owner reach — 40 followers of crossterm-rs
19.9/25	Track record — 11 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	40
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	crossterm-rs
public_repos	11
account_age_days	2,512

Package maintenance

79Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 492 days ago
20/20	Version history — 70 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	crossterm
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	492

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 24 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

85Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cross-platform, terminal, tui, console, cursor, input, color
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

76Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

70Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 24 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	91
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 91 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 93 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.93
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

78Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	justfile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, examples/interactive-demo/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 — 0/67 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	59,025
source_files_sampled	67
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—

Key facts

4,176GitHub stars

100contributors

29commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

36releases

1bus factor

168open 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 ★ / 403 ⇿

0Stars

403Forks

36Releases

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 7Patch 14

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10

7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-11 07:41 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8	CI-Tests	24 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10	Contributors	project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	22 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
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
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	base64	`0.23`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	bitflags	`2.9`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	derive_more	`2.0.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	document-features	`0.2.11`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	futures-core	`0.3.31`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	parking_lot	`0.12.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1.0.103`	Cargo.toml

All dependencies 91

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 84 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	base64	`0.23.0`	direct
crates.io	bitflags	`2.13.1`	direct
crates.io	derive_more	`2.1.1`	direct
crates.io	document-features	`0.2.12`	direct
crates.io	futures-core	`0.3.33`	direct
crates.io	parking_lot	`0.12.5`	direct
crates.io	serde	`1.0.229`	direct
crates.io	async-channel	`2.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	async-executor	`1.14.0`	indirect
crates.io	async-fs	`2.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	async-io	`2.6.0`	indirect
crates.io	async-lock	`3.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	async-net	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	async-process	`2.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	async-signal	`0.2.14`	indirect
crates.io	async-task	`4.7.1`	indirect
crates.io	atomic-waker	`1.1.2`	indirect
crates.io	autocfg	`1.5.1`	indirect
crates.io	blocking	`1.6.2`	indirect
crates.io	bytes	`1.12.1`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	concurrent-queue	`2.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	convert_case	`0.10.0`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-utils	`0.8.22`	indirect
crates.io	crossterm_winapi	`0.9.1`	indirect
crates.io	derive_more-impl	`2.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	errno	`0.3.14`	indirect
crates.io	event-listener	`5.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	event-listener-strategy	`0.5.4`	indirect
crates.io	fastrand	`2.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	filedescriptor	`0.8.3`	indirect
crates.io	futures	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	futures-channel	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	futures-executor	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	futures-io	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	futures-lite	`2.6.1`	indirect
crates.io	futures-macro	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	futures-sink	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	futures-task	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	futures-timer	`3.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	futures-util	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	hermit-abi	`0.5.2`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.189`	indirect
crates.io	linux-raw-sys	`0.12.1`	indirect
crates.io	litrs	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	lock_api	`0.4.14`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.33`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.3`	indirect
crates.io	mio	`1.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.4`	indirect
crates.io	parking	`2.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	parking_lot_core	`0.9.12`	indirect
crates.io	pin-project-lite	`0.2.17`	indirect
crates.io	piper	`0.2.5`	indirect
crates.io	polling	`3.11.0`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.107`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.47`	indirect
crates.io	redox_syscall	`0.5.18`	indirect
crates.io	rustc_version	`0.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	rustix	`1.1.4`	indirect
crates.io	scopeguard	`1.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	semver	`1.0.28`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.151`	indirect
crates.io	serial_test	`3.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	serial_test_derive	`3.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	signal-hook	`0.3.18`	indirect
crates.io	signal-hook-mio	`0.2.5`	indirect
crates.io	signal-hook-registry	`1.4.8`	indirect
crates.io	slab	`0.4.12`	indirect
crates.io	smallvec	`1.15.2`	indirect
crates.io	smol	`2.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	socket2	`0.6.5`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.119`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`3.0.3`	indirect
crates.io	temp-env	`0.3.6`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror	`1.0.69`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`1.0.69`	indirect
crates.io	tokio	`1.53.1`	indirect
crates.io	tokio-macros	`2.7.1`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-segmentation	`1.13.3`	indirect
crates.io	wasi	`0.11.1+wasi-snapshot-preview1`	indirect
crates.io	winapi	`0.3.9`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.23`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 91 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 statistics — crates.io.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Related records