Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 16:07 UTC

lucacasonato / json

Strongly typed JSON library for Rust

RustApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Nov 2021forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

lucacasonato/json holds a health index of 20 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (44/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 751 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

20
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.

20
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 30 is calibrated to 24 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Luca CasonatoPersonal account
2,380 followers275 public repossince Jun 2014@railwayapp

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.ioserde_jsonpoints to another repo — not scored1.0.15199,931,02818347 days agojsonserdeserializationno-stdencodingparser-implementations

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

20At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 751 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push751
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

48Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,752 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~31.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.0.71
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1,752
mean_days_between_releases31.7
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
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_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

37Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

37Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 79% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 83 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled83
top_contributor_share0.792

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
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): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

74Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
24.3/25Owner reach — 2,380 followers of lucacasonato
25/25Track record — 275 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,380
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginlucacasonato
public_repos275
account_age_days4,472
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

36Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

1Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak
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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

14Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.9/40Legible commit history — 26 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.26
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml, tests/crate/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml, tests/crate/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
52.6/55Manageable file sizes — 3/69 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes83,158
source_files_sampled69
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

0GitHub stars
83contributors
0commits, last 12 months
751days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • crates package 'serde_json' points at a different repository (https://github.com/serde-rs/json); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 16:06 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioserde1.0.100Cargo.toml
crates.ioindexmap1.5Cargo.toml
crates.ioitoa0.4.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioryu1.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 11

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioindexmap—direct
crates.ioitoa—direct
crates.ioryu—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioautomod—indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys—indirect
crates.iorustversion—indirect
crates.ioserde_bytes—indirect
crates.ioserde_derive—indirect
crates.ioserde_stacker—indirect
crates.iotrybuild—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 lucacasonato/json. Read them side by side →

100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional100wandb/wandbThe AI developer platform. Use Weights & Biases to train and fine-tune models, and manage models from experimentation to production.Exceptional100microsoft/onnxruntimeONNX Runtime: cross-platform, high performance ML inferencing and training acceleratorExceptional100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional99rust-lang/rustEmpowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.Exceptional99modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdkThe official Rust SDK for the Model Context ProtocolExceptional

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.