Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 18:21 UTC

gdesmott / system-deps

Run pkg-config from declarative dependencies in Cargo.toml

RustApache-2.0★ 109 stars⑂ 30 forkssince Apr 2020forkView on GitHub ↗

gdesmott/system-deps holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (73/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Guillaume DesmottesPersonal account
33 followers96 public repossince Jan 2012

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.iosystem-deps9.0.05,493,9423910 days agobuild-dependenciesbuild-dependsmanifestmetadatapkg-config
crates.iosystem-deps-meta9.0.029310 days agobuild-dependenciesbuild-dependsmanifestmetadatapkg-config

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume32 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share0.87
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases33 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 10 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~50.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count33
latest_release_tagsystem-deps-v9.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases50.4
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
33/60Stars109 stars
12.2/25Forks30 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks30
stars109
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads5,493,942 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessystem-deps
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads65,220,901
monthly_downloads5,493,942
unverified_packages_excludedsystem-deps-meta
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth26 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled26
top_contributor_share0.553
How it's scored
24.5/42Issue resolution58% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance100/104 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs100
open_issues15
closed_issues21
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.583
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
11/25Owner reach33 followers of gdesmott
25/25Track record96 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers33
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logingdesmott
public_repos96
account_age_days5,328
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history39 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessystem-deps, system-deps-meta
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configrustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/system-deps/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/system-deps/
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
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_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16.6/40Legible commit history27 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.31
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,432
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, meta/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-cfg-in-dep/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configrustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, meta/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-cfg-in-dep/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-fallback-names/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-feature-not-string/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-feature-versions/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-good/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-invalid-cfg/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-link-files/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-missing-key/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-not-table/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-optional/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-os-specific/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-override-name/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-rpath/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-static/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-two-libs/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-unexpected-key/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-version-fallback-names/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-version-in-table-not-string/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-version-missing/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-version-names/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-version-not-string/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-version-range-unsatisfied/Cargo.toml, src/tests/toml-version-range/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes57,758
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

109GitHub stars
26contributors
32commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
33releases
1bus factor
15open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 30 ⇿
0Stars
30Forks
28Releases

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.

0510152025303022020-082023-072026-05
Major 5Minor 4Patch 19

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 18:20 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
n/aCI-Testsinternal error: internal error: Client.Repositories.ListStatuses: internal error: ListStatuses: GET https://api.github.com/repos/gdesmott/system-deps/commits/89f8d28572a4e2a6ee4406873e9c6ad4518f7e5e/statuses: 401 Bad credentials []
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 5/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iosystem-deps-metaCargo.toml
crates.iopkg-configCargo.toml
crates.iotomlCargo.toml
crates.ioversion-compareCargo.toml
crates.ioheckCargo.toml
crates.iocfg-exprCargo.toml
crates.iowhichCargo.toml
crates.iocargo_metadatameta/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserdemeta/Cargo.toml
crates.iotomlmeta/Cargo.toml
crates.iocfg-exprmeta/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha256meta/Cargo.toml
crates.ioattohttpcmeta/Cargo.toml
crates.ioflate2meta/Cargo.toml
crates.iolzma-rust2meta/Cargo.toml
crates.iotarmeta/Cargo.toml
crates.iowhichmeta/Cargo.toml
crates.iozipmeta/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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 statisticscrates.io.