Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 11:38 UTC

jelmer / debian-workbench

Rust crate for analyzing and modifying Debian packages

RustNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jul 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

jelmer/debian-workbench holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

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.

39
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jelmer VernooijPersonal account
0 followers380 public repossince Jan 2009evroc

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 publish
crates.iodebian-analyzerpoints to another repo — not scored0.160.212,605650 days ago
crates.iodebian-workbenchpoints to another repo — not scored0.3.120567 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 111 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year111
human_commit_share0.92
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year20

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.160.21
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases18.8
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
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?

28At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
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
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

29At Risk
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance — 47/55 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs47
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs8
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

44Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of jelmer
25/25Track record — 380 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjelmer
public_repos380
account_age_days6,424
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

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
2/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/10 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
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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_aggregate4.5
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.

42Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.3/40Legible commit history — 35 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.38
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

37Weak
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml, debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.08

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
53.3/55Manageable file sizes — 1/33 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes72,034
source_files_sampled33
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
111commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
1open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • crates package 'debian-analyzer' points at a different repository (https://github.com/jelmer/debian-analyzer); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • crates package 'debian-workbench' points at a different repository (https://github.com/jelmer/debian-analyzer); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
6Releases

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.

111222212025-092026-022026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 5
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 · 2026-08-28 11:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests10 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/10 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
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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 45
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iolog0.4.18debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy_static1.5debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iomaplit1.0.2debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iourl2.4debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest>=0.12.10, <0.14debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.145debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0.85debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.42debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iodebversion>=0.5.0, <0.6debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha1>=0.10.1,<0.12debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iohex0.4.3debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iosqlx>=0.8, <0.10debian-analyzer/Cargo.toml
crates.iodebversion>=0.5.0, <0.6debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.18debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy-regex3.5debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.145debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iobreezyshim>=0.7.24, <0.8debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioconfigparser3debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4,<5debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioenv_logger>=0.10, <0.12debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0.85debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.42debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodistro-info>=0.4.0, <0.5debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iourl2.4debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iotempfile3.20debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iomaplit1.0.2debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy_static1.5debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodebian-changelog0.2.10debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodebian-control>=0.3.6, <0.4debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodebian-copyright>=0.1.29, <0.2debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iomakefile-lossless>=0.3.17, <0.4debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iopatchkit0.3debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodep3>=0.2.0, <0.3debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest>=0.12.10, <0.14debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iomerge30.2debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodifflib0.4.0debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodeb822-lossless>=0.5.13, <0.6debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iotoml_edit>=0.23, <0.26debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iosemver1debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iofiletime0.2.10debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha1>=0.10.1,<0.12debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iohex0.4.3debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iosvp-client0.2.0debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1.12.2debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
crates.iodebian-analyzer>=0.160.14, <0.161debian-workbench/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 33 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobreezyshim—direct
crates.iochrono—direct
crates.ioconfigparser—direct
crates.iodeb822-lossless—direct
crates.iodebian-analyzer—direct
crates.iodebian-changelog—direct
crates.iodebian-control—direct
crates.iodebian-copyright—direct
crates.iodebversion—direct
crates.iodep3—direct
crates.iodifflib—direct
crates.iodistro-info—direct
crates.ioenv_logger—direct
crates.iofiletime—direct
crates.iohex—direct
crates.iolazy-regex—direct
crates.iolazy_static—direct
crates.iolog—direct
crates.iomakefile-lossless—direct
crates.iomaplit—direct
crates.iomerge3—direct
crates.iopatchkit—direct
crates.ioregex—direct
crates.ioreqwest—direct
crates.iosemver—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioserde_json—direct
crates.iosha1—direct
crates.iosqlx—direct
crates.iosvp-client—direct
crates.iotempfile—direct
crates.iotoml_edit—direct
crates.iourl—direct
crates.ioquote—indirect
crates.ioserial_test—indirect
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 jelmer/debian-workbench. Read them side by side →

100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional100wandb/wandbThe AI developer platform. Use Weights & Biases to train and fine-tune models, and manage models from experimentation to production.Exceptional100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional100microsoft/onnxruntimeONNX Runtime: cross-platform, high performance ML inferencing and training acceleratorExceptional99vllm-project/vllmA high-throughput and memory-efficient inference and serving engine for LLMsExceptional99rust-lang/rustEmpowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.Exceptional

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.