Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-06 04:32 UTC

defenseunicorns / peat-mesh

Peat's Data Mesh

RustApache-2.0★ 1 star⑂ 4 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceMobile applicationLibraryhow this is determined

defenseunicorns/peat-mesh holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (40/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Defense UnicornsOrganization
495 followers74 public repossince Jul 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iopeat-mesh0.8.22,006750 days agocrdtmeshnetworkingp2ptopologycryptographynetwork-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume340 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year340
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases72 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~1.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count72
latest_release_tagv0.9.0-rc.63
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.2

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
4/25Forks4 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars1
watchers0
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44/80Monthly downloads2,006 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespeat-mesh
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads7,808
monthly_downloads2,006
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 97% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.968
How it's scored
39.7/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
29.2/30PR acceptance258/265 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs258
open_issues6
closed_issues105
prs_merged_7d19
prs_decided_7d19
prs_merged_30d59
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.946
closed_unmerged_prs7
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
19.4/25Owner reach495 followers of defenseunicorns
23.1/25Track record74 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers495
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logindefenseunicorns
public_repos74
account_age_days1,836
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history75 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespeat-mesh
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/peat-mesh
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/peat-mesh
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests22 out of 22 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
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.9

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.

72Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,581
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, android-tests/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, android-tests/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
49.8/55Manageable file sizes15/158 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes455,387
source_files_sampled158
oversized_source_files15
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

1GitHub stars
3contributors
340commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
72releases
1bus factor
6open issues
crates.io, Mavenpackage 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 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
47Releases

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.

1223344412026-042026-052026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-06 04:31 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file 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 45
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iotokio1Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio-util0.7Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror1Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow1Cargo.toml
crates.ioasync-trait0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioparking_lot0.12Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioed25519-dalek2Cargo.toml
crates.ioaes-gcm0.10Cargo.toml
crates.iop2560.13Cargo.toml
crates.iohkdf0.12Cargo.toml
crates.iohmac0.12Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10Cargo.toml
crates.iosubtle2.6Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22Cargo.toml
crates.iohex0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_core0.6Cargo.toml
crates.iomdns-sd0.19Cargo.toml
crates.iotoml0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iopeat-lite0.2.5Cargo.toml
crates.iopeat-btle>=0.4.0, <0.4.1Cargo.toml
crates.iopostcard1Cargo.toml
crates.ioaxum0.7Cargo.toml
crates.iotower0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iotower-http0.5Cargo.toml
crates.iokube0.98Cargo.toml
crates.iok8s-openapi0.24Cargo.toml
crates.iorustls0.23Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioautomerge0.9.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioiroh1.0.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioiroh-blobs0.103.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioiroh-mdns-address-lookup0.4.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioredb2.4Cargo.toml
crates.iolru0.16.3Cargo.toml
crates.ionegentropy0.5Cargo.toml
crates.iorand0.9Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio-stream0.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioif-addrs0.15Cargo.toml
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 45 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioaes-gcmdirect
crates.ioanyhowdirect
crates.ioasync-traitdirect
crates.ioautomergedirect
crates.ioaxumdirect
crates.iobase64direct
crates.iochronodirect
crates.ioed25519-dalekdirect
crates.iofuturesdirect
crates.iohexdirect
crates.iohkdfdirect
crates.iohmacdirect
crates.ioif-addrsdirect
crates.ioirohdirect
crates.ioiroh-blobsdirect
crates.ioiroh-mdns-address-lookupdirect
crates.iok8s-openapidirect
crates.iokubedirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.iolrudirect
crates.iomdns-sddirect
crates.ionegentropydirect
crates.iop256direct
crates.ioparking_lotdirect
crates.iopeat-btledirect
crates.iopeat-litedirect
crates.iopostcarddirect
crates.ioranddirect
crates.iorand_coredirect
crates.ioredbdirect
crates.iorustlsdirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_jsondirect
crates.iosha2direct
crates.iosubtledirect
crates.iothiserrordirect
crates.iotokiodirect
crates.iotokio-streamdirect
crates.iotokio-utildirect
crates.iotomldirect
crates.iotowerdirect
crates.iotower-httpdirect
crates.iotracingdirect
crates.iotracing-subscriberdirect
crates.iouuiddirect
crates.iofutures-utilindirect
crates.iohttp-body-utilindirect
crates.ioserial_testindirect
crates.iotempfileindirect
crates.iotokio-tungsteniteindirect
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.

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 statisticscrates.io.