Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 02:16 UTC

hsivonen / encoding_rs

A Gecko-oriented implementation of the Encoding Standard in Rust

RustCustom license★ 464 stars⑂ 69 forkssince Jan 2016View on GitHub ↗

hsivonen/encoding_rs holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Henri SivonenPersonal account
212 followers110 public repossince Nov 2010@mozilla

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.ioencoding_rs0.8.4135,022,388646 days agoencodingunicodewebcharsetweb-programminginternationalizationtext-processing

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9/36Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 120 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year120
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year13
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 64 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~227 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count64
latest_release_tagv0.8.41
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases227
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?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/60Stars — 464 stars
15.3/25Forks — 69 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks69
stars464
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 35,022,388 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesencoding_rs
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads526,382,105
monthly_downloads35,022,388
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 28 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled28
top_contributor_share0.929
How it's scored
35.7/42Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
24.4/30PR acceptance — 44/54 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues13
closed_issues74
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.851
closed_unmerged_prs10
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.7/25Owner reach — 212 followers of hsivonen
25/25Track record — 110 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers212
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginhsivonen
public_repos110
account_age_days5,786
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 6 days ago
20/20Version history — 64 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesencoding_rs
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish6

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/encoding_rs/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, encoding, charset, unicode, web
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://docs.rs/encoding_rs/
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/encoding_rs/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
26.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: bincode 1.3.3 (unknown)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
37.2/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 273 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages21
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the crates:encoding_rs@0.8.41 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 21 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.6/40Legible commit history — 3 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.03
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
44/55Manageable file sizes — 7/35 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes2,576,110
source_files_sampled35
oversized_source_files7

Key facts

464GitHub stars
28contributors
120commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
64releases
1bus factor
13open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 69 ⇿
0Stars
69Forks
52Releases

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.

01325385063756632017-032021-102026-06
Major 0Minor 3Patch 49

Each point covers 9 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 · 2026-09-16 02:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests2 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 27 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 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocfg-if1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioany_all_workaround0.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iorustversion1.0.19Cargo.toml
crates.iomultiversion_no_op1.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioscopeguard1Cargo.toml
All dependencies 12

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioany_all_workaround—direct
crates.iocfg-if—direct
crates.iomultiversion_no_op—direct
crates.iorustversion—direct
crates.ioscopeguard—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.iobincode—indirect
crates.iocore_detect—indirect
crates.iomultiversion—indirect
crates.ioserde_derive—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—indirect
crates.iosimdutf8—indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing crates:encoding_rs@0.8.41 pulls in 21 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
bincode1.3.3directunknown1—

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 statistics — crates.io.