Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 22:00 UTC

level11consulting / orbitalci

Orbital is a self-hosted CI system for solo/small consulting dev teams. Written in Rust.

RustGPL-3.0★ 30 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Oct 2017archivedView on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#ci#self-hosted#docker#rust

level11consulting/orbitalci holds a health index of 12 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (53/100) and lowest on Security (22/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

12
overall / 100
Critical

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.

12
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 36 is calibrated to 30 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OrbitalCIOrganization
0 followers1 public reposince Jan 2020

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioorbpoints to another repo — not scored0.12.141118117 days agoasyncionetworkingruntimeconcurrencynetwork-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

22At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 1,636 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1,636
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

54Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 5 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,810 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~17.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv0.7.31
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,810
mean_days_between_releases17.5

Community & Adoption

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

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

25At Risk
How it's scored
23.7/60Stars — 30 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars30
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

65Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

53Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

31At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.53

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
36.5/42Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
28.5/30PR acceptance — 93/98 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs93
open_issues24
closed_issues161
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.87
closed_unmerged_prs5
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of orbitalci
14.2/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginorbitalci
public_repos1
account_age_days2,361
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk
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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 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

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsci, self-hosted, docker, rust
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

22At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

22At Risk
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 — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintained — project is archived
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 69 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate2.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

48Weak
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/74 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes33,158
source_files_sampled74
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — protos/build_meta.proto, protos/code.proto, protos/notify.proto, protos/orbital_types.proto, protos/organization.proto, protos/secret.proto
0/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesprotos/build_meta.proto, protos/code.proto, protos/notify.proto, protos/orbital_types.proto, protos/organization.proto, protos/secret.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

30GitHub stars
4contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,636days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
24open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • crates package 'orb' points at a different repository (https://github.com/NaturalIO/orb); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.2 / 10
2.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 22:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities69 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 43
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocolor-eyre^0.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioenv_logger^0.9Cargo.toml
crates.iostructopt^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio^1.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotonic^0.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_yaml^0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iogit2^0.13Cargo.toml
crates.iogit-url-parse^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioprettytable-rs^0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum^0.23Cargo.toml
crates.iostrum_macros^0.23Cargo.toml
crates.iotermcolor^1.1Cargo.toml
crates.iorand^0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iomktemp0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iogit-event^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iogit-meta^0.6Cargo.toml
crates.iohex^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono-humanize^0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper^0.14Cargo.toml
crates.iowarp^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp^0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp-body^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iopin-project^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iotower^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost^0.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost-derive^0.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost-types^0.9Cargo.toml
crates.iodiesel^1.4Cargo.toml
crates.iodiesel_migrations^1.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioshiplift^0.7Cargo.toml
crates.iobase64^0.13Cargo.toml
crates.iohashicorp_vault^2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohostname^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iomachine^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-util^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio-stream^0.1Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 level11consulting/orbitalci. Read them side by side →

96Flagsmith/flagsmithFlagsmith is an open source feature flagging and remote config service. Self-host or use our hosted version at https://app.flagsmith.com.Exceptional98GreptimeTeam/greptimedbThe open-source observability database. One columnar engine for metrics, logs, and traces, on object storage.Exceptional97TraceMachina/nativelinkNativeLink is a Nix-powered, open source, high-performance build cache and remote execution server, compatible with Bazel, Soong, Pants, Buck2, Reclient, and other RE-compatible build systems. It offers drastically faster builds, reduced test flakiness, and support for specialized hardware.Exceptional98Stirling-Tools/Stirling-PDF#1 PDF Application on GitHub that lets you edit PDFs on any device anywhereExceptional98appwrite/appwriteAppwrite® - complete cloud infrastructure for your web, mobile and AI apps. Including Auth, Databases, Storage, Functions, Messaging, Hosting, Realtime and moreExceptional95dokku/dokkuA docker-powered PaaS that helps you build and manage the lifecycle of applicationsExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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