Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 02:12 UTC

knu / tfil

PTY proxy for filtering terminal sequences and enhancing interactive TUIs

RustMIT★ 7 stars⑂ 0 forkssince May 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

knu/tfil holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (31/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

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

Ownership

Akinori MushaPersonal account
540 followers144 public repossince May 2008

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.iotfil0.4.377214 days agoclaudecodexptyterminaltuicommand-line-utilities

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 135 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year135
human_commit_share0.64
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv0.4.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases4.3

Community & Adoption

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

31At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars — 7 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars7
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
25.2/80Monthly downloads — 77 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestfil
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads336
monthly_downloads77
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?

50Moderate · 23% of overall
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
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
23.8/30PR acceptance — 38/48 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs38
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs10
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 backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
19.7/25Owner reach — 540 followers of knu
25/25Track record — 144 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers540
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginknu
public_repos144
account_age_days6,731
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 4 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestfil
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://crates.io/crates/tfil
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 11 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscli, filter, ink, proxy, pty, rust, terminal, tui, claude, codex, tmux
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/tfil
docs_sitehttps://crates.io/crates/tfil
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.3

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages64
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 64 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 49 of 64 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.766
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 11 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.11
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
52.1/55Manageable file sizes — 1/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes60,805
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

7GitHub stars
1contributors
135commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
19releases
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

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 · 2026-10-19 02:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow1Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4Cargo.toml
crates.iocrossbeam-channel0.5Cargo.toml
crates.iolibc0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iomemchr2Cargo.toml
crates.ioportable-pty0.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioshlex2Cargo.toml
crates.iosignal-hook0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iounicode-segmentation1Cargo.toml
crates.iovt1000.19.1Cargo.toml
crates.iovtparse0.7Cargo.toml
All dependencies 64

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioanyhow1.0.104direct
crates.ioclap4.6.7direct
crates.iocrossbeam-channel0.5.17direct
crates.iolibc0.2.190direct
crates.iomemchr2.8.3direct
crates.ioportable-pty0.9.0direct
crates.ioshlex2.0.1direct
crates.iosignal-hook0.4.5direct
crates.iounicode-segmentation1.13.3direct
crates.iovtparse0.7.0direct
crates.ioanstream1.0.0indirect
crates.ioanstyle1.0.14indirect
crates.ioanstyle-parse1.0.0indirect
crates.ioanstyle-query1.1.5indirect
crates.ioanstyle-wincon3.0.11indirect
crates.ioarrayvec0.7.8indirect
crates.ioatuin-vt1000.19.1indirect
crates.iobitflags1.3.2indirect
crates.iobitflags2.13.2indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.5indirect
crates.iocfg_aliases0.1.1indirect
crates.ioclap_builder4.6.7indirect
crates.ioclap_derive4.6.7indirect
crates.ioclap_lex1.1.1indirect
crates.iocolorchoice1.0.5indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.23indirect
crates.iodowncast-rs1.2.1indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.iofastrand2.5.0indirect
crates.iofiledescriptor0.8.3indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.3indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.iois_terminal_polyfill1.70.2indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.18indirect
crates.iolazy_static1.5.1indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.iolog0.4.34indirect
crates.ionix0.28.0indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioonce_cell_polyfill1.70.2indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.5indirect
crates.ioserial20.2.38indirect
crates.ioshared_library0.1.9indirect
crates.ioshell-words1.1.1indirect
crates.iosignal-hook-registry1.4.8indirect
crates.iostrsim0.11.1indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iosyn3.0.9indirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0indirect
crates.iothiserror1.0.69indirect
crates.iothiserror-impl1.0.69indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.27indirect
crates.iounicode-width0.2.2indirect
crates.ioutf8parse0.2.2indirect
crates.iovte0.15.0indirect
crates.iowinapi0.3.9indirect
crates.iowinapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowinapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowinreg0.10.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 64 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.

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 statistics — crates.io.