Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 02:12 UTC

hellobertrand / zxc

Asymmetric lossless compression built for ultra-fast decode. 40%+ faster than LZ4 on ARM64, with better ratios. C library, write-once/read-many.

CCustom license★ 413 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗
#arm64#compression#lz4#high-performance#compression-library#lossless-compression#lz77#compression-algorithm#cross-platform#data-compresssion#decompression#embedded#huffman#simd#zstd

hellobertrand/zxc holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Bertrand LebonnoisPersonal account
31 followers30 public repossince Nov 2013Independent contractor

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

86Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.2/36Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 454 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year454
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year32

Release discipline

96Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~15 days
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 3 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 3 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv0.13.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases15

Community & Adoption

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

66Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

54Moderate
How it's scored
42.4/60Stars — 413 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars413
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

79Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

48Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

26At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.901

Issue & PR responsiveness

69Good
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
24.6/30PR acceptance — 248/303 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs248
open_issues4
closed_issues20
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs55
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.

Ownership & stewardship

55Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.8/25Owner reach — 31 followers of hellobertrand
22.9/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers31
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginhellobertrand
public_repos30
account_age_days4,632
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 19 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 16 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsarm64, c, compression, lz4, high-performance, compression-library, lossless-compression, lz77, compression-algorithm, cross-platform, data-compresssion, decompression, embedded, huffman, simd, zstd
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

85Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

85Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
4.5/7.5Signed-Releases — 3 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 3 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate8.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

83Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

95Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C (statically typed)
50.4/55Manageable file sizes — 8/95 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes103,473
source_files_sampled95
oversized_source_files8

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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

413GitHub stars
9contributors
454commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
4open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.5 / 10
8.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 02:12 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
10CI-Tests24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
0Code-ReviewFound 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
6Signed-Releases3 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 3 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 155

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 155 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iocc—indirect
crates.iocc1.2.65indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.9indirect
crates.iolibc—indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.45indirect
crates.ioshlex2.0.1indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.118indirect
crates.iothiserror—indirect
crates.iothiserror2.0.18indirect
crates.iothiserror-impl2.0.18indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys—indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iozxc-compress-sys—indirect
npm@emnapi/core1.11.1indirect
npm@emnapi/runtime1.11.1indirect
npm@emnapi/wasi-threads1.2.2indirect
npm@isaacs/fs-minipass4.0.1indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@napi-rs/wasm-runtime1.1.6indirect
npm@oxc-project/types0.137.0indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-android-arm641.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm641.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-x641.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x641.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm641.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-wasm32-wasi1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc1.1.3indirect
npm@rolldown/pluginutils1.0.1indirect
npm@standard-schema/spec1.1.0indirect
npm@tybys/wasm-util0.10.3indirect
npm@types/chai5.2.3indirect
npm@types/deep-eql4.0.2indirect
npm@types/estree1.0.9indirect
npm@vitest/expect4.1.9indirect
npm@vitest/mocker4.1.9indirect
npm@vitest/pretty-format4.1.9indirect
npm@vitest/runner4.1.9indirect
npm@vitest/snapshot4.1.9indirect
npm@vitest/spy4.1.9indirect
npm@vitest/utils4.1.9indirect
npmansi-regex5.0.1indirect
npmansi-styles4.3.0indirect
npmassertion-error2.0.1indirect
npmchai6.2.2indirect
npmchownr3.0.0indirect
npmcliui8.0.1indirect
npmcmake-js8.0.0indirect
npmcolor-convert2.0.1indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.4indirect
npmconvert-source-map2.0.0indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmdeep-extend0.6.0indirect
npmdetect-libc2.1.2indirect
npmemoji-regex8.0.0indirect
npmes-module-lexer2.1.0indirect
npmescalade3.2.0indirect
npmestree-walker3.0.3indirect
npmexpect-type1.3.0indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfs-extra11.3.4indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmgraceful-fs4.2.11indirect
npmini1.3.8indirect
npmis-fullwidth-code-point3.0.0indirect
npmisexe4.0.0indirect
npmjsonfile6.2.1indirect
npmlightningcss1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-android-arm641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-arm641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-x641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-freebsd-x641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-musl1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-gnu1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-musl1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-x64-msvc1.32.0indirect
npmmagic-string0.30.21indirect
npmminimist1.2.8indirect
npmminipass7.1.3indirect
npmminizlib3.1.0indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmnanoid3.3.15indirect
npmnode-addon-api8.9.0indirect
npmnode-api-headers1.8.0indirect
npmobug2.1.1indirect
npmpathe2.0.3indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.4indirect
npmpostcss8.5.16indirect
npmrc1.2.8indirect
npmrequire-directory2.1.1indirect
npmrolldown1.1.3indirect
npmsemver7.7.4indirect
npmsiginfo2.0.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmstackback0.0.2indirect
npmstd-env4.1.0indirect
npmstring-width4.2.3indirect
npmstrip-ansi6.0.1indirect
npmstrip-json-comments2.0.1indirect
npmtar7.5.16indirect
npmtinybench2.9.0indirect
npmtinyexec1.1.2indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmtinyrainbow3.1.0indirect
npmtslib2.8.1indirect
npmuniversalify2.0.1indirect
npmurl-join4.0.1indirect
npmvite8.1.2indirect
npmvitest4.1.9indirect
npmwhich6.0.1indirect
npmwhy-is-node-running2.3.0indirect
npmwrap-ansi7.0.0indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyallist5.0.0indirect
npmyargs17.7.2indirect
npmyargs-parser21.1.1indirect
PyPIbashlex0.18indirect
PyPIbracex2.6indirect
PyPIbuild1.5.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcibuildwheel4.1.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdependency-groups1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.29.0indirect
PyPIhumanize4.15.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPImeson1.11.1indirect
PyPIninja1.13.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIscikit-build-core0.12.2indirect
PyPIsetuptools83.0.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm10.2.0indirect
PyPIvcs-versioning2.2.2indirect
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 hellobertrand/zxc. Read them side by side →

83bodgit/sevenzipGolang library for dealing with 7-zip archivesExcellent94tracel-ai/burnBurn is a next generation tensor library and Deep Learning Framework that doesn't compromise on flexibility, efficiency and portability.Exceptional87klauspost/compressOptimized Go Compression PackagesExcellent86thomhurst/DekafTaking the Java out of KafkaExcellent96fastify/fastify-compressFastify compression utilsExceptional91bytedance/sonicA blazingly fast JSON serializing & deserializing libraryExcellent

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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