Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 03:32 UTC

mahdi-shojaee / loole

A safe sync/async multi-producer, multi-consumer channel

RustApache-2.0★ 209 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Sep 2023View on GitHub ↗

mahdi-shojaee/loole holds a health index of 11 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (69/100) and lowest on Security (25/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

11
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.

11
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Mahdi ShojaeePersonal account
20 followers13 public repossince Jul 2012

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.ioloole0.5.018,956242 days agoasyncchannelmpmcmpscsyncdata-structuresasynchronousconcurrency

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume — 50 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year50
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 1 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.5.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.6/60Stars — 209 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars209
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57/80Monthly downloads — 18,956 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesloole
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads213,999
monthly_downloads18,956
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% 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_share0.971
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 2/2 decided PRs merged
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_prs2
open_issues0
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.5/25Owner reach — 20 followers of mahdi-shojaee
20.3/25Track record — 13 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmahdi-shojaee
public_repos13
account_age_days5,197
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 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 24 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesloole
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
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.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/loole
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicschannel, concurrency, mpmc, mpsc, rust, async, sync, synchronization
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.rs/loole
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/loole
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

25At Risk · 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 0/30 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 — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.1
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier6
security_posture_before_jurisdiction31
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories16
affected_packages2
assessed_packages42
unassessed_packages12
affected_by_severityhigh 2
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 42 resolved dependencies against OSV. 12 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.1/40Legible commit history — 62 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.62
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, benchmark/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
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
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, benchmark/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 1/50 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes75,973
source_files_sampled50
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

209GitHub stars
3contributors
50commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 9 ⇿
0Stars
9Forks

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.

0246810912023-102025-012026-04

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-12 03:32 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
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
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iofutures-sink0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-core0.3Cargo.toml
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 52 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iofutures-core—direct
crates.iofutures-sink—direct
crates.ioasync-channel—indirect
crates.ioasync-std—indirect
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-channel—indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-utils—indirect
crates.ioflume—indirect
crates.iofutures—indirect
crates.iokanal—indirect
crates.iorand—indirect
crates.iotokio—indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/css-color5.1.11indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/dom-selector7.1.1indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/generational-cache1.0.1indirect
npm@asamuzakjp/nwsapi2.3.9indirect
npm@bramus/specificity2.4.2indirect
npm@csstools/color-helpers6.1.0indirect
npm@csstools/css-calc3.2.1indirect
npm@csstools/css-color-parser4.1.9indirect
npm@csstools/css-parser-algorithms4.0.0indirect
npm@csstools/css-syntax-patches-for-csstree1.1.6indirect
npm@csstools/css-tokenizer4.0.0indirect
npm@exodus/bytes1.15.1indirect
npmbidi-js1.0.3indirect
npmcss-tree3.2.1indirect
npmdata-urls7.0.0indirect
npmdecimal.js10.6.0indirect
npmecharts6.1.0indirect
npmentities8.0.0indirect
npmhtml-encoding-sniffer6.0.0indirect
npmis-potential-custom-element-name1.0.1indirect
npmjsdom29.1.1indirect
npmlru-cache11.5.2indirect
npmmdn-data2.27.1indirect
npmparse58.0.1indirect
npmpunycode2.3.1indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
npmsaxes6.0.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmsymbol-tree3.2.4indirect
npmtldts7.4.9indirect
npmtldts-core7.4.9indirect
npmtough-cookie6.0.2indirect
npmtr466.0.0indirect
npmtslib2.3.0indirect
npmundici7.28.0indirect
npmw3c-xmlserializer5.0.0indirect
npmwebidl-conversions8.0.1indirect
npmwhatwg-mimetype5.0.0indirect
npmwhatwg-url16.0.1indirect
npmxml-name-validator5.0.0indirect
npmxmlchars2.2.0indirect
npmzrender6.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 42 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 12 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
source-map-js1.2.1indirecthigh11.2.2
undici7.28.0indirecthigh158.10.2

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.