Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 10:44 UTC

kornelski / avif-decode

Convert AVIF images to PNG (as lossless as possible)

RustBSD-3-Clause★ 18 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jan 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

kornelski/avif-decode holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (54/100) and lowest on Vitality (26/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

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)
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 39 is calibrated to 34 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

KornelPersonal account
2,186 followers399 public repossince Apr 2009@ImageOptim

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.ioavif-decode2.0.05,59273 days agoav1decoderheiflibaom

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

26At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
4.3/18Commit volume — 2 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year2
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20/60Stars — 18 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars18
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
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
50/80Monthly downloads — 5,592 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesavif-decode
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads57,636
monthly_downloads5,592
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?

54Moderate · 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 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues1
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.5
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
24/25Owner reach — 2,186 followers of kornelski
25/25Track record — 399 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,186
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkornelski
public_repos399
account_age_days6,370
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 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 7 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesavif-decode
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

31At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://lib.rs/avif-decode
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsavif, avif-decoder, av1, rust, libaom
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://lib.rs/avif-decode
docs_sitehttps://lib.rs/avif-decode
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages24
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:avif-decode@2.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 24 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes4,105
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

18GitHub stars
1contributors
2commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
0releases
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 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212022-052023-082024-11

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 10:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioaom-decode1.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioimgref1.12.3Cargo.toml
crates.iolodepng3.12.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioquick-error2.0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iorgb0.8.53Cargo.toml
All dependencies 26

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 21 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioaom-decode1.0.0direct
crates.ioimgref1.12.3direct
crates.iolodepng3.12.2direct
crates.ioquick-error2.0.1direct
crates.iorgb0.8.53direct
crates.ioarrayvec0.7.8indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.ioavif-parse2.1.0indirect
crates.iobitreader0.3.11indirect
crates.iobytemuck1.25.2indirect
crates.iobyteorder1.5.0indirect
crates.iocc1.4.6indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.iocmake0.1.58indirect
crates.iocrc32fast1.5.2indirect
crates.iofallible_collections0.5.2indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.12indirect
crates.ioflate21.1.10indirect
crates.ioleb1280.2.7indirect
crates.iolibaom-sys0.17.2+libaom.3.11.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.189indirect
crates.iolog0.4.34indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioshlex2.0.1indirect
crates.ioyuv0.8.18indirect
crates.iozlib-rs0.6.7indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:avif-decode@2.0.0 pulls in 24 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 statistics — crates.io.