Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 21:52 UTC

diwic / dbus-rs

D-Bus binding for the Rust language

RustCustom license★ 673 stars⑂ 142 forkssince Nov 2014View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

diwic/dbus-rs holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (68/100) and lowest on Vitality (33/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

diwicPersonal account

56 followers55 public repossince Nov 2014

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	dbus	0.9.12	3,817,273	50	41 days ago	d-bus dbus ipc api-bindings
crates.io	dbus-tree	0.9.2	31,336	3	1764 days ago	dbus ipc d-bus api-bindings
crates.io	dbus-tokio	0.7.6	248,329	18	1253 days ago	d-bus dbus api-bindings asynchronous
crates.io	libdbus-sys	0.2.7	3,735,806	14	245 days ago	d-bus dbus libdbus external-ffi-bindings
crates.io	dbus-codegen	0.12.0	31,952	12	806 days ago	dbus d-bus api-bindings
crates.io	dbus-strings	0.1.0	3	1	2361 days ago	d-bus dbus ipc
crates.io	dbus-crossroads	0.5.3	329,732	10	267 days ago	d-bus dbus ipc api-bindings

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

33At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

55Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 10 days ago
9/36	Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18	Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

commits_last_year	23
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	10
active_weeks_last_year	13

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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?

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

69Good

How it's scored

45.9/60	Stars — 673 stars
17.9/25	Forks — 142 forks
5/15	Watchers — 9 watchers

Inputs used

forks	142
stars	673
watchers	9
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

44Weak

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18	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	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 8,194,431 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	dbus, dbus-tree, dbus-tokio, libdbus-sys, dbus-codegen, dbus-strings, dbus-crossroads
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	81,145,883
monthly_downloads	8,194,431
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 80 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	80
top_contributor_share	0.834

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good

How it's scored

40.3/42	Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
23.8/30	PR acceptance — 157/198 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	157
open_issues	11
closed_issues	264
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.96
closed_unmerged_prs	41
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.6/25	Owner reach — 56 followers of diwic
24.7/25	Track record — 55 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	56
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	diwic
public_repos	55
account_age_days	4,291

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 7 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 41 days ago
20/20	Version history — 50 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	dbus, dbus-tree, dbus-tokio, libdbus-sys, dbus-codegen, dbus-strings, dbus-crossroads
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	41

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 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 — 4 out of 5 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

65Good

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/dbus
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

40Weak

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 — 4 out of 5 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
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
3.8/7.5	Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
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	4

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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	22
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:dbus@0.9.12 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 22 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

26At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.1/40	Legible commit history — 49 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.49
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, dbus-codegen-tests/Cargo.toml, dbus-codegen/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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

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, dbus-codegen-tests/Cargo.toml, dbus-codegen/Cargo.toml, dbus-crossroads/Cargo.toml, dbus-native-channel/Cargo.toml, dbus-native/Cargo.toml, dbus-strings/Cargo.toml, dbus-tokio/Cargo.toml, dbus-tree/Cargo.toml, dbus/Cargo.toml, libdbus-sys/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 — 0/108 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	44,339
source_files_sampled	108
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

673GitHub stars

80contributors

23commits, last 12 months

10days since last push

0releases

1bus factor

11open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch crates package 'dbus-native' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 142 ⇿

0Stars

142Forks

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.

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10

4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 21:52 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8	CI-Tests	4 out of 5 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
2	Code-Review	Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
5	Maintained	3 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 25

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	dbus	`0.9`	dbus-codegen-tests/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-tree	`0.9`	dbus-codegen-tests/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-crossroads	`—`	dbus-codegen-tests/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-tokio	`—`	dbus-codegen-tests/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tokio	`1.0`	dbus-codegen-tests/Cargo.toml
crates.io	xml-rs	`0.8.3`	dbus-codegen/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus	`0.9`	dbus-codegen/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-tree	`0.9`	dbus-codegen/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-crossroads	`0.5`	dbus-codegen/Cargo.toml
crates.io	clap	`4.5`	dbus-codegen/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus	`0.9.3`	dbus-crossroads/Cargo.toml
crates.io	libc	`0.2.80`	dbus-native-channel/Cargo.toml
crates.io	libc	`0.2.66`	dbus-native/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-strings	`—`	dbus-native/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-native-channel	`—`	dbus-native/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus	`0.9`	dbus-tokio/Cargo.toml
crates.io	libc	`0.2.69`	dbus-tokio/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tokio	`1.0`	dbus-tokio/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus-crossroads	`0.5`	dbus-tokio/Cargo.toml
crates.io	dbus	`0.9`	dbus-tree/Cargo.toml
crates.io	libc	`0.2.66`	dbus/Cargo.toml
crates.io	libdbus-sys	`0.2.7`	dbus/Cargo.toml
crates.io	futures-util	`0.3`	dbus/Cargo.toml
crates.io	futures-channel	`0.3`	dbus/Cargo.toml
crates.io	futures-executor	`0.3`	dbus/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	clap	`—`	direct
crates.io	dbus	`—`	direct
crates.io	dbus-crossroads	`—`	direct
crates.io	dbus-tree	`—`	direct
crates.io	futures-channel	`—`	direct
crates.io	futures-executor	`—`	direct
crates.io	futures-util	`—`	direct
crates.io	libc	`—`	direct
crates.io	libdbus-sys	`—`	direct
crates.io	tokio	`—`	direct
crates.io	xml-rs	`—`	direct
crates.io	cc	`—`	indirect
crates.io	futures	`—`	indirect
crates.io	pkg-config	`—`	indirect
crates.io	tempfile	`—`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:dbus@0.9.12 pulls in 22 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

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