Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 02:38 UTC

denoland / rust-urlpattern

Rust implementation of the `URLPattern` web API

RustMIT★ 76 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Aug 2021View on GitHub ↗

denoland/rust-urlpattern holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on Vitality (38/100). It was last updated 217 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

67
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.

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

Ownership

DenoOrganization · verified domain
6,035 followers233 public repossince Aug 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
crates.iourlpattern0.6.04,094,31715217 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

38Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 217 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume — 25 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push217
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 5 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 217 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~344.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tag0.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release217
mean_days_between_releases344.5
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.4/60Stars — 76 stars
11.9/25Forks — 28 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars76
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 4,094,317 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesurlpattern
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads29,787,674
monthly_downloads4,094,317
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?

85Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 25% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.253
How it's scored
27.3/42Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed
26.6/30PR acceptance — 63/71 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs63
open_issues7
closed_issues13
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.65
closed_unmerged_prs8
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 6,035 followers of denoland
25/25Track record — 233 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers6,035
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindenoland
public_repos233
account_age_days2,968
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 217 days ago
20/20Version history — 15 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesurlpattern
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish217

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/urlpattern
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, web, urlpattern
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/urlpattern
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall
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 — 27 out of 27 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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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 — no data
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_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 58 of 75 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.773
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 75
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes34,838
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

76GitHub stars
18contributors
25commits, last 12 months
217days since last push
5releases
3bus factor
7open 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 ★ / 28 ⇿
0Stars
28Forks
5Releases

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.

0510152025302832021-082024-022026-09
Major 0Minor 4Patch 1

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 02:38 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-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iourl2.5.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1.10.5Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.127Cargo.toml
crates.ioicu_properties2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioicu_properties—direct
crates.ioregex—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.iourl—direct
crates.ioarbitrary—indirect
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—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.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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