Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-06 17:54 UTC

estin / geosuggest

suggest by name or find nearest by coordinates cities

RustMIT★ 12 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jun 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#rust#geocoding#http

estin/geosuggest holds a health index of 8 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (67/100) and lowest on Security (9/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

8
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.

8
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 44 is calibrated to 41 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

Evgeniy TatarkinPersonal account
0 followers66 public repossince Dec 2010

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.iogeosuggest-core0.8.44,171252 days agogeocodingservice
crates.iogeosuggest-utils0.8.44,134252 days agogeocodingservicedevelopment-tools

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

58Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume — 25 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_year25
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

21At Risk
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars12
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

65Good
How it's scored
52.3/80Monthly downloads — 8,305 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgeosuggest-core, geosuggest-utils
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads129,054
monthly_downloads8,305
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.716

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
24.7/30PR acceptance — 28/34 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs28
open_issues0
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs6
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1

Ownership & stewardship

44Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of estin
25/25Track record — 66 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginestin
public_repos66
account_age_days5,715
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

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 — 25 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgeosuggest-core, geosuggest-utils
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

62Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/geosuggest-core
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, geocoding, http
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/geosuggest-core
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

9Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

9Critical
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
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file 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 — 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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.4
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier9
security_posture_before_jurisdiction44
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
32.6/40Legible commit history — 55 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.611
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesjustfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml, geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml, geosuggest-examples/Cargo.toml, geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml, geosuggest/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes34,112
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
2contributors
25commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'geosuggest' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'geosuggest-demo' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'geosuggest-examples' from its registry
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

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

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.

12233312023-082024-122026-05

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-06 17:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 45
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iotracing—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iocsv—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iorayon—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iostrsim—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iokiddo—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iorkyv—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.ioitertools—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iogeoip2—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.iooaph—geosuggest-core/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde—geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json—geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.ioweb-sys0.3.69geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.92geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.iosycamore0.8.2geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwasm0.5.0geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_qs0.8geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.ioconsole_error_panic_hook0.1.7geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.ioconsole_log0.2.2geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.21geosuggest-demo/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1geosuggest-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3geosuggest-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1geosuggest-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iogeosuggest-core0.8geosuggest-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iogeosuggest-utils0.8geosuggest-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.iozip—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.iorkyv—geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.iogeosuggest-core0.8geosuggest-utils/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.iontex—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-files—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-cors—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.ioconfig—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.iogeosuggest-core0.8geosuggest/Cargo.toml
crates.iooaph—geosuggest/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 14

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioconsole_error_panic_hook—direct
crates.ioconsole_log—direct
crates.iogeosuggest-core—direct
crates.iogeosuggest-utils—direct
crates.iolog—direct
crates.ioreqwasm—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.ioserde_qs—direct
crates.iosycamore—direct
crates.iotokio—direct
crates.iotracing—direct
crates.iotracing-subscriber—direct
crates.iowasm-bindgen—direct
crates.ioweb-sys—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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with estin/geosuggest. Read them side by side →

94plabayo/ramamodular service framework to move and transform network packetsExceptional98svix/svix-webhooksThe open source and enterprise-ready webhooks service 🦀Exceptional96actix/actix-webActix Web is a powerful, pragmatic, and extremely fast web framework for Rust.Exceptional96slint-ui/slintSlint is an open-source declarative GUI toolkit to build native user interfaces for Rust, C++, JavaScript, or Python apps.Exceptional96web-infra-dev/rspackFast Rust-based bundler for the web with a modernized webpack API 🦀Exceptional96apache/iggyApache Iggy: Hyper-Efficient Message Streaming at Laser SpeedExceptional

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io.