Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 22:00 UTC

leotaku / web-push-native

Pure rust implementation of web-push and related standards

RustApache-2.0★ 15 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Aug 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

leotaku/web-push-native holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (62/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (46/100). It was last updated 49 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
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.

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

Ownership

Leo GaskinPersonal account
54 followers98 public repossince Dec 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.ioece-native0.5.027,7441449 days agoecehttp-ecerust-cryptoweb-pushnetwork-programmingcryptographyweb-programming
crates.ioweb-push-native0.5.025,0711449 days agohttp-pushrust-cryptoweb-pushwebpushnetwork-programmingcryptographyweb-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

47Weak
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 49 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push49
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 10 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 49 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~148.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv0.5.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release49
mean_days_between_releases148.8
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

23At Risk
How it's scored
18.6/60Stars — 15 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars15
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

79Good
How it's scored
63/80Monthly downloads — 52,815 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesece-native, web-push-native
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads239,748
monthly_downloads52,815
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.99

Issue & PR responsiveness

54Moderate
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
18.8/30PR acceptance — 5/8 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs5
open_issues1
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs3
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.

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.5/25Owner reach — 54 followers of leotaku
25/25Track record — 98 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers54
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginleotaku
public_repos98
account_age_days3,181
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 49 days ago
20/20Version history — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesece-native, web-push-native
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish49

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/ece-native
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/ece-native
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 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 1/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.4
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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

5Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4.8/40Legible commit history — 9 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.09
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

55Moderate
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, ece/Cargo.toml, example/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Nix
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, ece/Cargo.toml, example/Cargo.toml, web_push/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 — 0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes9,419
source_files_sampled9
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 — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

15GitHub stars
3contributors
28commits, last 12 months
49days since last push
10releases
1bus factor
1open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
4Releases

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.

1223344412023-052024-122026-07
Major 0Minor 3Patch 1

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 21:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 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 1/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioaes-gcm0.10.3ece/Cargo.toml
crates.iohkdf0.12.4ece/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10.9ece/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaes-gcm0.10.3web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.iobase64ct1.8.3web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.ioece-native0.5.0web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.iohkdf0.13.0web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp1.4.2web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.iojwt-simple0.12.17web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.iop2560.13.2web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.229web_push/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.11.0web_push/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioaes-gcm—direct
crates.iobase64ct—direct
crates.ioece-native—direct
crates.iohkdf—direct
crates.iohttp—direct
crates.iojwt-simple—direct
crates.iop256—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.iosha2—direct
crates.ioaxum—indirect
crates.iohyper—indirect
crates.iohyper-tls—indirect
crates.iohyper-util—indirect
crates.ioonce_cell—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—indirect
crates.iotokio—indirect
crates.iotower-livereload—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 leotaku/web-push-native. Read them side by side →

95actix/actix-netA collection of lower-level libraries for composable network services.Exceptional89biandratti/huginn-netMulti-protocol passive fingerprinting library: TCP/HTTP (p0f-style) + TLS (JA4-style) analysis in RustExcellent98svix/svix-webhooksThe open source and enterprise-ready webhooks service 🦀Exceptional97rustls/rustlsA modern TLS library in RustExceptional96cloudflare/pingoraA library for building fast, reliable and evolvable network services.Exceptional96libp2p/rust-libp2pThe Rust Implementation of the libp2p networking stack. 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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