Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 00:00 UTC

dusk-network / merkle

A sparsely populated Merkle tree, parametrized over its height and arity.

RustMPL-2.0★ 9 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Apr 2023View on GitHub ↗

dusk-network/merkle holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (78/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (53/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 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-merkle0.6.04,024112 days agodatahashmerklestructuretreedata-structuresno-std
crates.ioposeidon-merkle0.11.02,616142 days agodatamerkleposeidonstructuretreedata-structuresno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
17/18Commit volume — 77 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year77
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~121.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv0.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases121.5
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
14.6/60Stars — 9 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars9
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51/80Monthly downloads — 6,640 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdusk-merkle, poseidon-merkle
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads127,524
monthly_downloads6,640
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 65% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.65
How it's scored
39.5/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance — 88/101 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_prs88
open_issues3
closed_issues47
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d9
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d9
issue_closed_ratio0.94
closed_unmerged_prs13
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_days3,042

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdusk-merkle, poseidon-merkle
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/dusk-merkle
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/dusk-merkle
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 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
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 18 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_aggregate5.7
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)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
37.2/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 151 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages83
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the crates:dusk-merkle@0.6.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 83 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.

78Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.6/40Legible commit history — 63 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.63
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,802
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, dusk-merkle/Makefile, poseidon-merkle/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, dusk-merkle/Makefile, poseidon-merkle/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, dusk-merkle/Cargo.toml, poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes36,593
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

9GitHub stars
5contributors
77commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
3open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
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.

12233312023-122025-042026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-12 00:00 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
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 18 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 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iodusk-bytes0.1dusk-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iorkyv0.7dusk-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytecheck0.6dusk-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iodusk-bytes0.1poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iodusk-merkle—poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iodusk-poseidon0.44poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iodusk-bls12_3810.16poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iodusk-plonk0.24poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iorkyv0.7poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytecheck0.6poseidon-merkle/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobytecheck—direct
crates.iodusk-bls12_381—direct
crates.iodusk-bytes—direct
crates.iodusk-plonk—direct
crates.iodusk-poseidon—direct
crates.iorkyv—direct
crates.ioblake3—indirect
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.ioff—indirect
crates.iorand—indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing crates:dusk-merkle@0.6.0 pulls in 83 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
rkyv0.7.46directunknown10.8.17

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.