Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 01:37 UTC

icedland / iced

Blazing fast and correct x86/x64 disassembler, assembler, decoder, encoder for Rust, .NET, Java, Python, Lua

Rust · C# · JavaMIT★ 3,514 stars⑂ 272 forkssince Sep 2018View on GitHub ↗
#disassembler#assembler#x86#x64#decoder#encoder

icedland/iced holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (70/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

icedlandOrganization
67 followers3 public repossince Jan 2021

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

79Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
17.3/18Commit volume — 84 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year84
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23

Release discipline

52Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 908 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~106 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv1.21.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release908
mean_days_between_releases106
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?

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

88Excellent
How it's scored
57.5/60Stars — 3,514 stars
20.3/25Forks — 272 forks
10.1/15Watchers — 66 watchers
Inputs used
forks272
stars3,514
watchers66
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

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)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 21 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.86

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good
How it's scored
35.6/42Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
23.2/30PR acceptance — 399/517 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs399
open_issues36
closed_issues200
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.847
closed_unmerged_prs118
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

73Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
13.2/25Owner reach — 67 followers of icedland
15.4/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers67
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginicedland
public_repos3
account_age_days2,004
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdisassembler, assembler, x86, x64, decoder, encoder
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 0 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_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

43Weak · 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)

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
11/11Static type checking — src/rust/iced-x86-py/src/iced_x86/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_configssrc/rust/iced-x86-py/src/iced_x86/py.typed
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

96Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
50.8/55Manageable file sizes — 130/1,696 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes4,532,043
source_files_sampled1,696
oversized_source_files130

Key facts

3,514GitHub stars
21contributors
84commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
36open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 01:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 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
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobincode—indirect
crates.ioiced-x861.21.0indirect
crates.iojs-sys—indirect
crates.iolazy_static—indirect
crates.iolibc—indirect
crates.iopyo3—indirect
crates.ioserde—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen—indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-params6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.sonatype.plugins:nexus-staging-maven-plugin1.7.0indirect
npmjest^30.0.0indirect
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild10.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NETFramework.ReferenceAssemblies1.0.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub10.0.300indirect
NuGetxunit2.9.3indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.console2.9.3indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5indirect
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPIpylint—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-rust—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIwheel—indirect
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 icedland/iced. Read them side by side →

59intelxed/xedThe X86 Encoder Decoder (XED), is a software library for encoding and decoding X86 (IA32 and Intel64) instructionsModerate309ee1/Capstone.NET.NET Core and .NET Framework binding for the Capstone Disassembly FrameworkAt Risk92ultrajson/ultrajsonUltra fast JSON decoder and encoder written in C with Python bindingsExcellent91capstone-engine/capstoneCapstone disassembly/disassembler framework for ARM, ARM64 (ARMv8), Alpha, BPF, Ethereum VM, HPPA, LoongArch, M68K, M680X, Mips, MOS65XX, PPC, RISC-V(rv32G/rv64G), SH, Sparc, SystemZ, TMS320C64X, TriCore, Webassembly, XCore and X86.Excellent88Vanilagy/mediabunnyPure TypeScript media toolkit for reading, writing, and converting video and audio files, directly in the browser.Excellent86mapbox/pbfA low-level, lightweight protocol buffers implementation in JavaScript.Excellent

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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