Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 16:46 UTC

jaemk / self_update

Self updates for rust executables

RustMIT★ 958 stars⑂ 95 forkssince Jul 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#rust-executables#update#upgrade#rust

jaemk/self_update holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (45/100). It was last updated 25 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

James KominickPersonal account
85 followers113 public repossince Jul 2015

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.ioself_update0.44.0708,5726437 days agodownloadreleaseupdateupgradecommand-line-utilities

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

52Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 25 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
17.1/18Commit volume — 80 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year80
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push25
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

32At Risk
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,836 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~477.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv9.9.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,836
mean_days_between_releases477.2

Community & Adoption

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

77Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

69Good
How it's scored
48.4/60Stars — 958 stars
16.4/25Forks — 95 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks95
stars958
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional
How it's scored
78/80Monthly downloads — 708,572 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesself_update
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads10,946,474
monthly_downloads708,572
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 67% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.671

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good
How it's scored
32.6/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
26.6/30PR acceptance — 93/105 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs93
open_issues20
closed_issues69
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.775
closed_unmerged_prs12
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

61Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.9/25Owner reach — 85 followers of jaemk
25/25Track record — 113 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers85
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjaemk
public_repos113
account_age_days4,041
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 37 days ago
20/20Version history — 64 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesself_update
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish37

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — clippy.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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/self_update
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust-executables, update, upgrade, rust
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/self_update
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

45Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.5

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.

78Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .cursorrules, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 79 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.79
agent_instruction_files.cursorrules, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,050

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — clippy.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_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

84Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
39.3/55Manageable file sizes — 10/35 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes257,485
source_files_sampled35
oversized_source_files10

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

958GitHub stars
31contributors
80commits, last 12 months
25days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
20open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 95 ⇿
0Stars
95Forks

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.

0204060801009152019-022022-112026-08

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 16:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 26
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioserde1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1Cargo.toml
crates.iotempfile3Cargo.toml
crates.ioflate21Cargo.toml
crates.iolzma-rs0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iotar0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iosemver1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iozip8Cargo.toml
crates.ioindicatif0.18Cargo.toml
crates.ioquick-xml0.41Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iourlencoding2.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioself-replace1Cargo.toml
crates.iozipsign-api0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp1Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest0.13Cargo.toml
crates.ioureq3.0.6Cargo.toml
crates.iohmac0.13Cargo.toml
crates.iopercent-encoding2.3.2Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.11.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotime0.3.45Cargo.toml
crates.iourl2.5.8Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-util0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1Cargo.toml
All dependencies 26

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 26 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobytes—direct
crates.ioflate2—direct
crates.iofutures-util—direct
crates.iohmac—direct
crates.iohttp—direct
crates.ioindicatif—direct
crates.iolog—direct
crates.iolzma-rs—direct
crates.iopercent-encoding—direct
crates.ioquick-xml—direct
crates.ioregex—direct
crates.ioreqwest—direct
crates.ioself-replace—direct
crates.iosemver—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.iosha2—direct
crates.iotar—direct
crates.iotempfile—direct
crates.iotime—direct
crates.iotokio—direct
crates.ioureq—direct
crates.iourl—direct
crates.iourlencoding—direct
crates.iozip—direct
crates.iozipsign-api—direct
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with jaemk/self_update. Read them side by side →

94topgrade-rs/topgradeUpgrade all the thingsExceptional98ZcashFoundation/zebraZcash - Financial Privacy in Rust 🦓Exceptional98uutils/coreutilsCross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutilsExceptional98boa-dev/boaBoa is an embeddable Javascript engine written in Rust.Exceptional96slint-ui/slintSlint is an open-source declarative GUI toolkit to build native user interfaces for Rust, C++, JavaScript, or Python apps.Exceptional96apache/iggyApache Iggy: Hyper-Efficient Message Streaming at Laser SpeedExceptional

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.