Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 01:58 UTC

microsoft / mu_rust_helpers

Mu Rust Helper Code

RustCustom license★ 9 stars⑂ 20 forkssince Jun 2024archivedView on GitHub ↗

microsoft/mu_rust_helpers holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (83/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

19
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.

19
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MicrosoftOrganization
125,221 followers8,197 public repossince Dec 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
crates.iomu_rust_helpers5.0.03,26070 days ago
crates.iomu_uefi_guid5.0.03,27870 days ago
crates.iomu_uefi_perf_timer5.0.03,28070 days ago
crates.iomu_uefi_decompress5.0.03,28970 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence22/52 weeks with commits
13.4/18Commit volume30 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year30
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~72.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv5.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases72.6
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
14.6/60Stars9 stars
10.7/25Forks20 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks20
stars9
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
54.9/80Monthly downloads13,107 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmu_rust_helpers, mu_uefi_guid, mu_uefi_perf_timer, mu_uefi_decompress
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads169,004
monthly_downloads13,107
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?

83Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth15 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.307
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution50% of issues closed
22.1/30PR acceptance79/107 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs79
open_issues1
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.5
closed_unmerged_prs28
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach125,221 followers of microsoft
25/25Track record8,197 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers125,221
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginmicrosoft
public_repos8,197
account_age_days4,601
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable4 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history7 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmu_rust_helpers, mu_uefi_guid, mu_uefi_perf_timer, mu_uefi_decompress
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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/mu_rust_helpers
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/mu_rust_helpers
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject is archived
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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.2
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.

38Weak · 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
0/18One-command bootstrap
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_files
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 sizes0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes37,739
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

9GitHub stars
15contributors
30commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
3bus factor
1open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 01:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iomu_uefi_decompressCargo.toml
crates.iomu_uefi_guidCargo.toml
crates.iomu_uefi_perf_timer5Cargo.toml
crates.ior-efiguid/Cargo.toml
crates.iouuidguid/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog~0.4perf_timer/Cargo.toml
crates.iologuefi_decompress/Cargo.toml
crates.iobitvec1uefi_decompress/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
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.