Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-13 02:52 UTC

emgyrz / ewts-rs

Converter from EWTS to Tibetan Unicode symbols

RustNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Nov 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

emgyrz/ewts-rs holds a health index of 9 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on Security (25/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

9
overall / 100
Critical

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.

9
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 47 is calibrated to 45 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Max ZPersonal account
6 followers23 public repossince May 2015

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.ioewts0.1.46,46550 days agoconvertertibetanewtslocalizationinternationalizationencodingtext-processing
crates.iobenchpoints to another repo — not scored1.1.04522001 days ago—
crates.ioewts-c0.1.1520 days agoconvertertibetanewtslocalizationinternationalizationencodingtext-processing
npmbench0.3.611,42684018 days ago—
crates.ioewts-cli0.1.4850 days agoconvertertibetanewtslocalizationinternationalizationcommand-line-utilitiesencodingtext-processing

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

54Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume — 3 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~669.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tag0.1.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases669.9

Community & Adoption

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

25At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.8/80Monthly downloads — 6,478 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesewts, ewts-c, ewts-cli
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads27,880
monthly_downloads6,478
unverified_packages_excludedbench
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.979
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 1/1 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.1/25Owner reach — 6 followers of emgyrz
22.1/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginemgyrz
public_repos23
account_age_days4,182
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 4 package(s) on crates, npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 8 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesewts, ewts-c, bench, ewts-cli
ecosystemscrates, npm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://emgyrz.github.io/ewts-rs/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsconverter, ewts, tibetan, transliteration
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://emgyrz.github.io/ewts-rs/
docs_sitehttps://emgyrz.github.io/ewts-rs/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

25At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
1.5/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate2.9
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier6
security_posture_before_jurisdiction29
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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
advisories13
affected_packages1
assessed_packages68
unassessed_packages8
affected_by_severityhigh 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 68 resolved dependencies against OSV. 8 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.3/40Legible commit history — 2 of 47 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.043
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, bench/Cargo.toml, ewts-c/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — demo/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 47
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_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdemo/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, bench/Cargo.toml, ewts-c/Cargo.toml, ewts-cli/Cargo.toml, ewts-wasm/Cargo.toml, ewts/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes12,704
source_files_sampled23
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

0GitHub stars
2contributors
3commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • crates package 'bench' points at a different repository (https://github.com/AlexanderThaller/bench-rs); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • Could not fetch crates package 'ewts-wasm' from its registry
  • deps.dev does not index crates:ewts@0.1.4; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-13 02:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioewts*bench/Cargo.toml
npmewts*bench/package.json
npmjsewts^1.0.4bench/package.json
npmtibetan-ewts-converter^1.0.1bench/package.json
crates.ioewts0.1.4ewts-c/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.5.21ewts-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioewts0.1.4ewts-cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2ewts-wasm/Cargo.toml
crates.ioewts0.1.4ewts-wasm/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 76

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 67 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioclap—direct
crates.ioclap4.5.21direct
crates.ioewts—direct
crates.iowasm-bindgen—direct
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.95direct
npmewts*direct
npmewts^0.1.6direct
npmjsewts^1.0.4direct
npmtibetan-ewts-converter^1.0.1direct
crates.ioanstream0.6.18indirect
crates.ioanstyle1.0.10indirect
crates.ioanstyle-parse0.2.6indirect
crates.ioanstyle-query1.1.2indirect
crates.ioanstyle-wincon3.0.6indirect
crates.iobitflags2.6.0indirect
crates.iobumpalo3.16.0indirect
crates.iocbindgen—indirect
crates.iocbindgen0.27.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.0indirect
crates.ioclap_builder4.5.21indirect
crates.ioclap_derive4.5.18indirect
crates.ioclap_lex0.7.3indirect
crates.iocolorchoice1.0.3indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.1indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.10indirect
crates.iofastrand2.2.0indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.15.2indirect
crates.ioheck0.4.1indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.7.0indirect
crates.iois_terminal_polyfill1.70.1indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.14indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.167indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.4.14indirect
crates.iolog0.4.22indirect
crates.iomemchr2.7.4indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.20.2indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.92indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.37indirect
crates.iorustix0.38.41indirect
crates.ioryu1.0.18indirect
crates.ioserde1.0.215indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.215indirect
crates.ioserde_json1.0.133indirect
crates.ioserde_spanned0.6.8indirect
crates.iostrsim0.11.1indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.89indirect
crates.iotempfile3.14.0indirect
crates.iotoml0.8.19indirect
crates.iotoml_datetime0.6.8indirect
crates.iotoml_edit0.22.22indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.14indirect
crates.ioutf8parse0.2.2indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-backend0.2.95indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro0.2.95indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro-support0.2.95indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-shared0.2.95indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.52.0indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.59.0indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowinnow0.6.20indirect
npm@types/toastify-js1.12.3indirect
npmsass-embedded1.81.0indirect
npmtoastify-js1.12.0indirect
npmtypescript5.6.2indirect
npmvite6.0.1indirect
npmvite-plugin-top-level-await1.4.4indirect
npmvite-plugin-wasm3.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 68 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 8 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
vite6.0.1indirecthigh138.0.16

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, npm.