Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 13:20 UTC

junkurihara / httpsig-rs

Rust implementation of IETF RFC 9421, http message signatures

RustMIT★ 34 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Dec 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#http-message-signatures#http-signatures#hyper#rust#http-signature#rfc9421

junkurihara/httpsig-rs holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (66/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jun KuriharaPersonal account
125 followers163 public repossince Nov 2014Zettant Inc.

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.iohttpsig0.0.256,514250 days ago
crates.iohttpsig-hyper0.0.253,114250 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

64Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

70Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 21 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36Release recency — latest release 157 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~78.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tag0.0.24
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release157
mean_days_between_releases78.2
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

33At Risk
How it's scored
24.6/60Stars — 34 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars34
watchers1
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

66Good
How it's scored
53.1/80Monthly downloads — 9,628 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshttpsig, httpsig-hyper
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads166,026
monthly_downloads9,628
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)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.982

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
21.4/30PR acceptance — 15/21 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues2
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs6
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.1/25Owner reach — 125 followers of junkurihara
25/25Track record — 163 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers125
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjunkurihara
public_repos163
account_age_days4,272
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 25 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshttpsig, httpsig-hyper
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 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

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/httpsig
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshttp-message-signatures, http-signatures, hyper, rust, http-signature, rfc9421
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/httpsig
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
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_aggregate4.8
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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

29At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
29.3/40Legible commit history — 55 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.55
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

29At Risk
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml, httpsig/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
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
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml, httpsig/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes32,314
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files0

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

34GitHub stars
3contributors
45commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
2open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index crates:httpsig@0.0.25; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
8Releases

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.

0246810121112024-032025-052026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 8

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 13:20 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
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
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
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 31
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iohttpsig0.0.25httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0.19httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1.44httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures0.3.33httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.ioindexmap2.14.0httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iosubtle2.6.1httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.11.0httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iosfv0.15.0httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22.1httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp1.4.2httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp-body1.1.0httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp-body-util0.1.4httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.12.1httpsig-hyper/Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0.19httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1.44httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iorustc-hash2.1.3httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.ioindexmap2.14.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iorand0.10.2httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iopkcs80.11.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iospki0.8.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iosec10.8.1httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.ioed25519-compact2.3.1httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.ioecdsa0.17.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iop2560.14.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iop3840.14.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iohmac0.13.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.11.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.12.1httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iorsa0.10.0-rc.18httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22.1httpsig/Cargo.toml
crates.iosfv0.15.0httpsig/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 24 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobase64—direct
crates.iobytes—direct
crates.ioecdsa—direct
crates.ioed25519-compact—direct
crates.iofutures—direct
crates.iohmac—direct
crates.iohttp—direct
crates.iohttp-body—direct
crates.iohttp-body-util—direct
crates.iohttpsig—direct
crates.ioindexmap—direct
crates.iop256—direct
crates.iop384—direct
crates.iopkcs8—direct
crates.iorand—direct
crates.iorsa—direct
crates.iorustc-hash—direct
crates.iosec1—direct
crates.iosfv—direct
crates.iosha2—direct
crates.iospki—direct
crates.iosubtle—direct
crates.iothiserror—direct
crates.iotracing—direct
crates.iotokio—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 junkurihara/httpsig-rs. Read them side by side →

93ClickHouse/clickhouse-rsOfficial pure Rust typed client for ClickHouse DBExceptional93hyperium/hyperAn HTTP library for RustExceptional100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional99ai-dynamo/dynamoA Datacenter Scale Distributed Inference Serving FrameworkExceptional99Qiskit/qiskitQiskit is an open-source SDK for working with quantum computers at the level of extended quantum circuits, operators, and primitives.Exceptional99rust-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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io.