Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-11 08:00 UTC

ebarnard / rust-plist

A rusty plist parser.

RustMIT★ 91 stars⑂ 61 forkssince Aug 2015View on GitHub ↗

ebarnard/rust-plist holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Security (69/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (47/100). It was last updated 37 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ed BarnardPersonal account
9 followers56 public repossince Sep 2011

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.ioplist1.10.06,315,5505637 days agoparserplistencodingconfigparser-implementations

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 37 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume — 18 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push37
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 37 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~108.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv1.10.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release37
mean_days_between_releases108.1
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.7/60Stars — 91 stars
14.8/25Forks — 61 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks61
stars91
watchers5
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
80/80Monthly downloads — 6,315,550 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesplist
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads54,281,598
monthly_downloads6,315,550
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
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.848
How it's scored
35.8/42Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance — 101/125 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs101
open_issues10
closed_issues58
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.853
closed_unmerged_prs24
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
7.2/25Owner reach — 9 followers of ebarnard
24.8/25Track record — 56 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers9
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginebarnard
public_repos56
account_age_days5,440
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 37 days ago
20/20Version history — 56 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesplist
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish37

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 22 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 22 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages47
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 47 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
8/40Legible commit history — 15 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.15
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
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
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/35 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes28,214
source_files_sampled35
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

91GitHub stars
30contributors
18commits, last 12 months
37days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
10open 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 ★ / 61 ⇿
0Stars
61Forks
13Releases

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.

013253850636162015-112021-032026-07
Major 0Minor 6Patch 7

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 07:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests22 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained8 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iobase640.22.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotime0.3.47Cargo.toml
crates.ioindexmap2.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioquick_xml0.41.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 47

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobase640.22.1direct
crates.ioindexmap1.9.3direct
crates.ioindexmap2.14.0direct
crates.ioserde1.0.228direct
crates.iotime0.3.47direct
crates.ioautocfg1.5.0indirect
crates.ioderanged0.5.8indirect
crates.iodiff0.1.13indirect
crates.iodissimilar1.0.11indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.iofastrand2.4.1indirect
crates.ioglob0.3.3indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.12.3indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.17.1indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.15indirect
crates.iolinked-hash-map0.5.6indirect
crates.iomacrotest1.2.1indirect
crates.iomemchr2.7.5indirect
crates.ionum-conv0.2.1indirect
crates.iopowerfmt0.2.0indirect
crates.ioprettyplease0.2.36indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.95indirect
crates.ioquick-xml0.41.0indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.40indirect
crates.ioryu1.0.20indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_json1.0.150indirect
crates.ioserde_spanned1.1.1indirect
crates.ioserde_yaml0.8.26indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.104indirect
crates.iotarget-triple1.0.0indirect
crates.iotermcolor1.4.1indirect
crates.iotime-core0.1.8indirect
crates.iotime-macros0.2.27indirect
crates.iotoml1.1.2+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iotoml_datetime1.1.1+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iotoml_parser1.1.2+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iotoml_writer1.1.1+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iotrybuild1.0.116indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.18indirect
crates.iowinapi-util0.1.11indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowinnow1.0.3indirect
crates.ioyaml-rust0.4.5indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.21indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 47 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
yaml-rust0.4.5indirectunknown1

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.