Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 16:48 UTC

flachesis / gemini-rust

A comprehensive Rust client library for Google's Gemini.

RustMIT★ 74 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Mar 2025View on GitHub ↗

flachesis/gemini-rust holds a health index of 32 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Security (24/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

32
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

32
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Michael YangPersonal account
18 followers58 public repossince Apr 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.iogemini-rust2.0.05,0932210 days agoaiclientembedgeminigoogleapi-bindings

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume176 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year176
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year30
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases9 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~39 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases39
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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.2/60Stars74 stars
11.5/25Forks25 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars74
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
49.4/80Monthly downloads5,093 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgemini-rust
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads39,303
monthly_downloads5,093
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.378
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution89% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance49/52 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs49
open_issues2
closed_issues16
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
9.2/25Owner reach18 followers of flachesis
24.9/25Track record58 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers18
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginflachesis
public_repos58
account_age_days5,566
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history22 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgemini-rust
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

53Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://crates.io/crates/gemini-rust
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, gemini-api
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/gemini-rust
docs_sitehttps://crates.io/crates/gemini-rust
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

24At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier24
security_posture_before_jurisdiction47
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,901
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/122 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes51,599
source_files_sampled122
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
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

74GitHub stars
17contributors
176commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
9releases
2bus factor
2open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 16:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
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
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioreqwest^0.12.15Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iourl^2.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioasync-trait^0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures^0.3.1Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-util^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22Cargo.toml
crates.ioasync-stream0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iosnafu0.8Cargo.toml
crates.ioeventsource-stream0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iomime_guess2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iomime0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1Cargo.toml
crates.iotime0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1.41Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum0.27Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum_macros0.27Cargo.toml
crates.ioschemars1.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 21

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioasync-streamdirect
crates.ioasync-traitdirect
crates.iobase64direct
crates.ioeventsource-streamdirect
crates.iofuturesdirect
crates.iofutures-utildirect
crates.iomimedirect
crates.iomime_guessdirect
crates.ioreqwestdirect
crates.ioschemarsdirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_jsondirect
crates.iosnafudirect
crates.iostrumdirect
crates.iostrum_macrosdirect
crates.iotimedirect
crates.iotokiodirect
crates.iotracingdirect
crates.iourldirect
crates.iodisplay-error-chainindirect
crates.iotracing-subscriberindirect
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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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