Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 20:30 UTC

johnmanjiro13 / tokio-fluent

A fluentd client using tokio

RustCustom license★ 10 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Dec 2022View on GitHub ↗

johnmanjiro13/tokio-fluent holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Security (60/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (31/100). It was last updated 29 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

36
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.

36
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ikumi NakamuraPersonal account
15 followers46 public repossince May 2017

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.iotokio-fluent0.5.19014629 days agofluentdtokio

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

41Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 29 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.65
days_since_last_push29
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 629 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~77.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv0.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release629
mean_days_between_releases77.1
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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars10 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars10
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense 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
How it's scored
26.1/80Monthly downloads90 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestokio-fluent
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads19,424
monthly_downloads90
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?

51Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution67% of issues closed
23.5/30PR acceptance43/55 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs43
open_issues1
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.667
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
8.7/25Owner reach15 followers of johnmanjiro13
24.2/25Track record46 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers15
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginjohnmanjiro13
public_repos46
account_age_days3,383
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 629 days ago
20/20Version history14 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestokio-fluent
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish629

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/tokio-fluent
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfluentd, fluentd-logger, rust, tokio
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/tokio-fluent
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages50
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:tokio-fluent@0.5.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 50 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history57 of 65 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.877
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance17 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.17
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes8,604
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

10GitHub stars
1contributors
0commits, last 12 months
29days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
1open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
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.

12233312023-072023-092023-12
Major 0Minor 2Patch 4
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-23 20:29 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioasync-trait0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.4.0Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.26Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.20Cargo.toml
crates.iormp-serde1.1.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.183Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.31.0Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid1.5.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioanyhowdirect
crates.ioasync-traitdirect
crates.iobase64direct
crates.iobytesdirect
crates.iochronodirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.iormp-serdedirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.iotokiodirect
crates.iouuiddirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:tokio-fluent@0.5.1 pulls in 50 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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 statisticscrates.io.