Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-10 17:11 UTC

dusk-network / jubjub

Implementation of the Jubjub elliptic curve group

RustCustom license★ 8 stars⑂ 10 forkssince Apr 2020forkView on GitHub ↗

dusk-network/jubjub holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account 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

DuskOrganization
383 followers113 public repossince Jun 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iodusk-jubjub0.16.011,214363 days agocryptographyeccelliptic-curvejubjubzk-snarkssciencealgorithmsno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18Commit volume — 57 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year57
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~168 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tagv0.16.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases168
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
8/25Forks — 10 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks10
stars8
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
54/80Monthly downloads — 11,214 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdusk-jubjub
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads304,200
monthly_downloads11,214
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
16.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.256
How it's scored
39.7/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 104/114 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs104
open_issues4
closed_issues70
prs_merged_7d10
prs_decided_7d10
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d13
issue_closed_ratio0.946
closed_unmerged_prs10
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
0/20Verified domain
18.6/25Owner reach — 383 followers of dusk-network
25/25Track record — 113 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers383
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logindusk-network
public_repos113
account_age_days3,041

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 36 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdusk-jubjub
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/dusk-jubjub
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/dusk-jubjub
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

62Moderate · 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 — 9 out of 9 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
26.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: rkyv 0.7.46 (unknown)
18.5/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: atty 0.2.14 (low), serde_cbor 0.11.2 (unknown)
34/40No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,924 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories5
affected_packages3
assessed_packages99
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitylow 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the crates:dusk-jubjub@0.16.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 99 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.1/40Legible commit history — 62 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.62
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,119
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated 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 100
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_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
51.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/17 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes62,778
source_files_sampled17
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

8GitHub stars
20contributors
57commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
27releases
3bus factor
4open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 10 ⇿
0Stars
10Forks
10Releases

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.

02468101012021-062024-012026-08
Major 0Minor 4Patch 6

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-10 17:11 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-Tests9 out of 9 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
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iodusk-bls12_3810.16Cargo.toml
crates.ioff0.13Cargo.toml
crates.iogroup0.13Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_core0.6Cargo.toml
crates.iosubtle2Cargo.toml
crates.ioblake2b_simd1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobytecheck0.6Cargo.toml
crates.iodusk-bytes0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iorkyv0.7Cargo.toml
crates.iozeroize1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohex0.4Cargo.toml
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioblake2b_simd—direct
crates.iobytecheck—direct
crates.iodusk-bls12_381—direct
crates.iodusk-bytes—direct
crates.ioff—direct
crates.iogroup—direct
crates.iohex—direct
crates.iorand_core—direct
crates.iorkyv—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.iosubtle—direct
crates.iozeroize—direct
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.iocsv—indirect
crates.ioquickcheck—indirect
crates.iorand—indirect
crates.iorand_xorshift—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—indirect
Dependency advisories 3

Installing crates:dusk-jubjub@0.16.0 pulls in 99 packages, direct and transitive: 3 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
atty0.2.14indirectlow3—
rkyv0.7.46directunknown10.8.17
serde_cbor0.11.2indirectunknown1—

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.

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.