Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 09:05 UTC

lu-zero / cargo-c

build and install C-compatible libraries

RustMIT★ 546 stars⑂ 63 forkssince May 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

lu-zero/cargo-c holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (47/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Luca BarbatoPersonal account
377 followers447 public repossince Apr 2010

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.iocargo-c0.10.24+cargo-0.98.034,135953 days agocargocdylibcommand-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 recencylast push 3 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence22/52 weeks with commits
15.1/18Commit volume47 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year47
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases96 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~37.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count96
latest_release_tagv0.10.24
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases37.5

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44.4/60Stars546 stars
14.9/25Forks63 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks63
stars546
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
60.4/80Monthly downloads34,135 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescargo-c
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads983,984
monthly_downloads34,135
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth53 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled53
top_contributor_share0.721
How it's scored
34.3/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
20.5/30PR acceptance235/344 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs235
open_issues36
closed_issues160
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.816
closed_unmerged_prs109
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
18.5/25Owner reach377 followers of lu-zero
25/25Track record447 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers377
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginlu-zero
public_repos447
account_age_days5,944
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history95 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescargo-c
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
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 sitehttps://docs.rs/cargo-c
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscargo, cargo-subcommand, hacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/cargo-c
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5
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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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
18/18One-command bootstrapexample-project/usage-from-c/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesexample-project/usage-from-c/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes48,366
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

546GitHub stars
53contributors
47commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
96releases
1bus factor
36open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch crates package 'example-project' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 09:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests20 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 5/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained9 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 21
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocargo0.98.0Cargo.toml
crates.iocargo-util0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iosemver1.0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.5.18Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1.5.6Cargo.toml
crates.iocbindgen0.29.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotoml1.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.123Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_derive1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0.62Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iocc1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioglob0.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioitertools0.15Cargo.toml
crates.ioimplib0.6.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioobject0.39.1Cargo.toml
crates.iocargo-platform0.3.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap_complete4.5.65Cargo.toml
crates.iocamino1.2.2Cargo.toml
crates.iolibc0.2example-project/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 23

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioanyhowdirect
crates.iocaminodirect
crates.iocargodirect
crates.iocargo-platformdirect
crates.iocargo-utildirect
crates.iocbindgendirect
crates.ioccdirect
crates.ioclapdirect
crates.ioclap_completedirect
crates.ioglobdirect
crates.ioimplibdirect
crates.ioitertoolsdirect
crates.iolibcdirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.ioobjectdirect
crates.ioregexdirect
crates.iosemverdirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_derivedirect
crates.ioserde_jsondirect
crates.iotomldirect
crates.iocargo_metadataindirect
crates.ioinline-cindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.