Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 00:10 UTC

jerus-org / link-bridge

Library to generate and name a page to use as a short link and redirect to another page on your site.

RustMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2025View on GitHub ↗

jerus-org/link-bridge holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (42/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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

Jerus Data Protection LimitedOrganization

1 follower20 public repossince Dec 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	link-bridge	0.2.7	2,810	9	6 days ago	redirect rust short-link url web web-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 6 days ago
6.9/36	Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 106 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	106
human_commit_share	0.81
days_since_last_push	6
active_weeks_last_year	10

Release discipline

98Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~43.1 days
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	12
latest_release_tag	v0.3.3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	6
mean_days_between_releases	43.1

Community & Adoption

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

42Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 1 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	1
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

77Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

58Moderate

How it's scored

46/80	Monthly downloads — 2,810 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	link-bridge
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	22,101
monthly_downloads	2,810
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?

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

49Weak

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.376

Issue & PR responsiveness

33At Risk

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
28.3/30	PR acceptance — 51/54 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	51
open_issues	1
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0
closed_unmerged_prs	3
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

49Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
2.2/25	Owner reach — 1 followers of jerus-org
17/25	Track record — 20 public repos, account ~3 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	jerus-org
public_repos	20
account_age_days	1,342

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 6 days ago
20/20	Version history — 9 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	link-bridge
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	6

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

36Weak

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/link-bridge
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/link-bridge
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

63Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
6/7.5	Signed-Releases — 2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	14
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	4
scorecard_aggregate	6.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	51
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 51 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

83Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENT.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 81 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	AGENT.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	1,112

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

76Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — justfile
0/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 18 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	justfile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.18
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.19

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	23,584
source_files_sampled	3
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

1GitHub stars

3contributors

106commits, last 12 months

6days since last push

12releases

2bus factor

1open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10

6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 00:10 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
8	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
8	Signed-Releases	2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	base62	`—`	crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml
crates.io	chrono	`—`	crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml
crates.io	once_cell	`—`	crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml
crates.io	regex	`—`	crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_json	`—`	crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml
crates.io	thiserror	`—`	crates/link-bridge/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 51

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 45 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	base62	`2.2.4`	direct
crates.io	chrono	`0.4.45`	direct
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.4`	direct
crates.io	regex	`1.13.1`	direct
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.151`	direct
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0.20`	direct
crates.io	aho-corasick	`1.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	android_system_properties	`0.1.6`	indirect
crates.io	autocfg	`1.5.1`	indirect
crates.io	bumpalo	`3.20.3`	indirect
crates.io	cc	`1.4.3`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	core-foundation-sys	`0.8.7`	indirect
crates.io	find-msvc-tools	`0.1.11`	indirect
crates.io	futures-core	`0.3.34`	indirect
crates.io	futures-task	`0.3.34`	indirect
crates.io	futures-util	`0.3.34`	indirect
crates.io	iana-time-zone	`0.1.65`	indirect
crates.io	iana-time-zone-haiku	`0.1.2`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	js-sys	`0.3.104`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.189`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.33`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.3`	indirect
crates.io	num-traits	`0.2.19`	indirect
crates.io	pin-project-lite	`0.2.17`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.107`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.47`	indirect
crates.io	regex-automata	`0.4.18`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.8.11`	indirect
crates.io	rustversion	`1.0.23`	indirect
crates.io	serde	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`2.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	slab	`0.4.12`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.119`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`3.0.3`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`2.0.20`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-macro	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-macro-support	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-shared	`0.2.127`	indirect
crates.io	windows-core	`0.62.2`	indirect
crates.io	windows-implement	`0.60.2`	indirect
crates.io	windows-interface	`0.59.3`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-result	`0.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-strings	`0.5.1`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.23`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 51 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records