Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-11 07:56 UTC

dignifiedquire / num-bigint

Big integer types for Rust

RustApache-2.0★ 14 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Jul 2018forkView on GitHub ↗

dignifiedquire/num-bigint holds a health index of 41 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (24/100). It was last updated 271 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Friedel ZiegelmayerPersonal account

1,034 followers535 public repossince May 2011

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	num-bigint-dig	0.9.1	14,072,753	17	271 days ago	bignum mathematics numerics algorithms data-structures science

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

33At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

14Critical

How it's scored

3.6/36	Push recency — last push 271 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9/18	Commit volume — 9 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	9
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	271
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

62Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 1 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 282 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	1
latest_release_tag	v0.8.5
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	282
mean_days_between_releases	—

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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

31At Risk

How it's scored

18.1/60	Stars — 14 stars
12.5/25	Forks — 33 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	33
stars	14
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	no
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 14,072,753 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	num-bigint-dig
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	177,471,177
monthly_downloads	14,072,753
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?

73Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

75Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 29% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 92 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 60 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	92
top_contributor_share	0.294

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate

How it's scored

19/42	Issue resolution — 45% of issues closed
26.7/30	PR acceptance — 32/36 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

merged_prs	32
open_issues	17
closed_issues	14
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.452
closed_unmerged_prs	4
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

71Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
21.7/25	Owner reach — 1,034 followers of dignifiedquire
25/25	Track record — 535 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,034
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	dignifiedquire
public_repos	535
account_age_days	5,565

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 271 days ago
20/20	Version history — 17 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	num-bigint-dig
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	271

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

24At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/num-bigint-dig
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/num-bigint-dig
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	no

Security

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

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5	Code-Review — Found 13/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 60 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	3.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

27At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.7/40	Legible commit history — 50 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.5
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, benchmark_crate/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, benchmark_crate/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
52.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/45 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	102,437
source_files_sampled	45
oversized_source_files	2

Key facts

14GitHub stars

92contributors

9commits, last 12 months

271days since last push

1releases

3bus factor

17open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Community profile unavailable
Could not fetch crates package 'num-bigint-dig-benchmark' from its registry
No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿

0Stars

33Forks

1Releases

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 0Patch 1

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10

3.7aggregate

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 07:56 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4	Code-Review	Found 13/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10	Contributors	project has 60 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
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
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 15

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	arbitrary	`1.1.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	smallvec	`1.10.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	num-integer	`0.1.39`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	num-traits	`0.2.4`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	num-iter	`0.1.37`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	rand	`0.9`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	zeroize	`1.5`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	libm	`0.2.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	once_cell	`1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	num-bigint-dig	`—`	benchmark_crate/Cargo.toml
crates.io	num-integer	`0.1.39`	benchmark_crate/Cargo.toml
crates.io	num-traits	`0.2.4`	benchmark_crate/Cargo.toml
crates.io	rand	`0.8.3`	benchmark_crate/Cargo.toml
crates.io	rand_chacha	`0.3.0`	benchmark_crate/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	arbitrary	`—`	direct
crates.io	libm	`—`	direct
crates.io	num-integer	`—`	direct
crates.io	num-iter	`—`	direct
crates.io	num-traits	`—`	direct
crates.io	once_cell	`—`	direct
crates.io	rand	`—`	direct
crates.io	rand_chacha	`—`	direct
crates.io	serde	`—`	direct
crates.io	smallvec	`—`	direct
crates.io	zeroize	`—`	direct
crates.io	criterion	`—`	indirect
crates.io	rand_isaac	`—`	indirect
crates.io	rand_xorshift	`—`	indirect
crates.io	serde_test	`—`	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.

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 statistics — crates.io.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records