Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 14:43 UTC

dr-montasir / forge-rsx

forge-rsx is a Rust macro library for declarative, JSX-like HTML generation. It allows you to write HTML structures with embedded logic, attributes, nested tags, loops, and more, directly in Rust code with a concise syntax.

RustMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗

dr-montasir/forge-rsx holds a health index of 26 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (47/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated 42 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

26
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

26
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 32 is calibrated to 26 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Dr. MontasirPersonal account
1 follower48 public repossince Jan 2017Montasir

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioforge-rsx1.2.01,2331342 days agoenginehtmlmacrorsxtemplateweb-programmingtemplate-engineparser-implementations

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

46Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 42 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume — 13 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push42
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 228 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release228
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

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

31At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
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
41.2/80Monthly downloads — 1,233 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesforge-rsx
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads11,023
monthly_downloads1,233
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?

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of dr-montasir
24.3/25Track record — 48 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindr-montasir
public_repos48
account_age_days3,527
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 42 days ago
20/20Version history — 13 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesforge-rsx
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish42

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

27At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/dr-montasir/forge-rsx
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsengine, html, rsx, template, attributes, if-else, loops, nested-tags
has_wikino
homepagehttps://github.com/dr-montasir/forge-rsx
docs_sitehttps://github.com/dr-montasir/forge-rsx
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsCargo.toml
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes12,855
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
13commits, last 12 months
42days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/dr-montasir/forge-rsx: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-09T14:43:05Z. Please include `9494:C7CEC:199066:18BEFC:6AA17077` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.