Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 15:51 UTC

esp-rs / esp-wifi-sys

Wi-Fi and BT drivers packaged for integration into bare-metal esp-wifi.

Rust · CApache-2.0★ 444 stars⑂ 105 forkssince Mar 2022View on GitHub ↗

esp-rs/esp-wifi-sys holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (23/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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.

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)

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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

esp-rsOrganization

2,342 followers55 public repossince Jan 2019

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	xtaskpoints to another repo — not scored	0.1.4	328	5	80 days ago	automation codesign macos release xtask command-line-utilities
crates.io	esp-wifi-sys-esp32	0.3.0	11,815	3	3 days ago	bluetooth esp no-std wifi hardware-support embedded
crates.io	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c2	0.3.0	10,607	3	3 days ago	bluetooth esp no-std wifi hardware-support embedded
crates.io	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c3	0.3.0	12,916	3	3 days ago	bluetooth esp no-std wifi hardware-support embedded
crates.io	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c5	0.3.0	1,884	2	3 days ago	bluetooth esp no-std wifi hardware-support embedded
crates.io	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c6	0.3.0	13,031	3	3 days ago	bluetooth esp no-std wifi hardware-support embedded
crates.io	esp-wifi-sys-esp32h2	0.3.0	11,464	3	3 days ago	bluetooth esp no-std hardware-support embedded
crates.io	esp-wifi-sys-esp32s2	0.3.0	10,836	3	3 days ago	esp no-std wifi hardware-support embedded

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
6.9/36	Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18	Commit volume — 18 commits in the last year
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

commits_last_year	18
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	10

Release discipline

74Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 5 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 157 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~147.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	5
latest_release_tag	v0.2.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	157
mean_days_between_releases	147.9

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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

65Good

How it's scored

42.9/60	Stars — 444 stars
16.8/25	Forks — 105 forks
5/15	Watchers — 9 watchers

Inputs used

forks	105
stars	444
watchers	9
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

81Excellent

How it's scored

64.8/80	Monthly downloads — 72,553 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	esp-wifi-sys-esp32, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c2, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c3, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c5, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c6, esp-wifi-sys-esp32h2, esp-wifi-sys-esp32s2
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	408,276
monthly_downloads	72,553
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?

73Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 34 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	34
top_contributor_share	0.571

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent

How it's scored

41/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
27.4/30	PR acceptance — 265/290 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 19/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	265
open_issues	4
closed_issues	169
prs_merged_7d	3
prs_decided_7d	3
prs_merged_30d	6
prs_decided_30d	6
issue_closed_ratio	0.977
closed_unmerged_prs	25
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

79Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
24.2/25	Owner reach — 2,342 followers of esp-rs
24.7/25	Track record — 55 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,342
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	esp-rs
public_repos	55
account_age_days	2,803

Package maintenance

92Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 7 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
12/20	Version history — 3 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	esp-wifi-sys-esp32, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c2, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c3, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c5, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c6, esp-wifi-sys-esp32h2, esp-wifi-sys-esp32s2
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

23At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/esp-wifi-sys-esp32
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/esp-wifi-sys-esp32
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk

How it's scored

0/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 19/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
4.5/7.5	Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	3.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.95
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

26At Risk

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c2/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c2/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c3/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c5/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c6/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32c61/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32h2/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32s2/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32s3/Cargo.toml, esp-wifi-sys-esp32s31/Cargo.toml, xtask/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

97Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
51.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 21/355 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	708,691
source_files_sampled	355
oversized_source_files	21

Key facts

444GitHub stars

34contributors

18commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

5releases

1bus factor

4open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
crates package 'xtask' points at a different repository (https://github.com/arcboxlabs/xtask); excluded from ecosystem scoring
No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 105 ⇿

0Stars

105Forks

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.

Major 0Minor 3Patch 1

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10

3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 15:50 UTC

0	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6	Code-Review	Found 19/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
6	Maintained	8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 25

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c5/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c5/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c6/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c6/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c61/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32c61/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32h2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32h2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32s2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32s2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32s3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32s3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.25`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32s31/Cargo.toml
crates.io	defmt	`1.0.1`	esp-wifi-sys-esp32s31/Cargo.toml
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.71`	xtask/Cargo.toml
crates.io	bindgen	`0.66.1`	xtask/Cargo.toml
crates.io	directories	`5.0.1`	xtask/Cargo.toml
crates.io	env_logger	`0.10.0`	xtask/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.18`	xtask/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	anyhow	`—`	direct
crates.io	bindgen	`—`	direct
crates.io	defmt	`—`	direct
crates.io	directories	`—`	direct
crates.io	env_logger	`—`	direct
crates.io	log	`—`	direct

Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records