Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 11:22 UTC

jdx / jdx-tar

RustCustom license★ 12 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

jdx/jdx-tar holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

jdxPersonal account
4,389 followers695 public repossince Mar 2010@entirehq

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.iojdx-tar1.1.130,667554 days agotarsparsearchiveextractcompressionfilesystem

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share0.489
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 54 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv1.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release54
mean_days_between_releases14.5
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

17Critical
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars12
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

75Good
How it's scored
59.8/80Monthly downloads — 30,667 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjdx-tar
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads94,933
monthly_downloads30,667
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

86Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 34/34 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs34
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
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

75Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach — 4,389 followers of jdx
25/25Track record — 695 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers4,389
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjdx
public_repos695
account_age_days6,074
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 54 days ago
20/20Version history — 5 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjdx-tar
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish54

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([lints])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/jdx-tar
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/jdx-tar
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

68Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

71Good
How it's scored
12.3/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: tar 0.4.40 (high 8.1)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
33.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 215 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories5
affected_packages1
assessed_packages17
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the crates:jdx-tar@1.1.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 17 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.

76Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 22 of 22 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

95Exceptional
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])
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 45 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 45 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.089
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.422

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes36,611
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
1contributors
45commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 11:22 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
9CI-Tests25 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 3/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
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 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iofiletime0.2.25Cargo.toml
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iofiletime0.2.29direct
crates.ioadler22.0.1indirect
crates.ioarbitrary1.5.0indirect
crates.iobitflags2.13.2indirect
crates.iocc1.8.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.5indirect
crates.iocrc32fast1.5.2indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.iofastrand2.5.0indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.14indirect
crates.ioflate21.1.10indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.3indirect
crates.iojobserver0.1.35indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.191indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys0.4.13indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.iominiz_oxide0.9.1indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.5indirect
crates.ioshlex2.0.1indirect
crates.iosimd-adler320.3.10indirect
crates.iotar0.4.46indirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.ioxattr1.6.1indirect
crates.iozlib-rs0.6.8indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing crates:jdx-tar@1.1.1 pulls in 17 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
tar0.4.40directhigh50.4.46

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with jdx/jdx-tar. Read them side by side →

80soenneker/soenneker.compression.tar.xzA utility library dealing with Tar and XZ (tar.xz) extraction/archiving and (de)compressionExcellent80Ismail-elkorchi/dir-archiverDirectory archiving CLI and library for ZIP, TAR, and layered compression across Node.js, Deno, and Bun.Excellent93zip-rs/zip2Zip implementation in RustExceptional87ChanTsune/Portable-Network-ArchivePNA (Portable Network Archive) is a highly scalable archive format that can be compressed, encrypted, and split. Also, its data structure is inspired by the PNG data structure.Excellent78git-pkgs/archivesA Go library for reading and browsing archive files in memoryGood80SocketDev/decmpfsExcellent

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.