Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 14:56 UTC

mikelodder7 / blstrs

RustCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 5 forkssince May 2023forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

mikelodder7/blstrs holds a health index of 41 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 35 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

41
overall / 100
Weak

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.

41
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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Michael LodderPersonal account
160 followers140 public repossince Apr 2011

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.ioblstrs_plus0.9.03,9112235 days agoalgorithmscryptography

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

46Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

29At Risk
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 35 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year4
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push35
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 1 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 35 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.9.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release35
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

5Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
5/25Forks — 5 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

19Critical
How it's scored
0/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

60Moderate
How it's scored
47.9/80Monthly downloads — 3,911 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesblstrs_plus
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads118,928
monthly_downloads3,911
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.548

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
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 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs2
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, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

64Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.9/25Owner reach — 160 followers of mikelodder7
25/25Track record — 140 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers160
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmikelodder7
public_repos140
account_age_days5,628
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 35 days ago
20/20Version history — 22 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesblstrs_plus
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish35

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

39Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak
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 — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/blstrs_plus
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/blstrs_plus
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At 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 2 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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 — 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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.5
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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24/40Legible commit history — 45 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.45
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — 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
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

92Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
47.5/55Manageable file sizes — 3/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes84,547
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

0GitHub stars
11contributors
4commits, last 12 months
35days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks

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.

12345512024-072025-022025-09

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 14:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioelliptic_curve_0130.13.8Cargo.toml
crates.ioff_0130.13.1Cargo.toml
crates.iogroup_0130.13.0Cargo.toml
crates.iopairing0.23.0Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_core0.6.4Cargo.toml
crates.iosubtle2.5Cargo.toml
crates.iozeroize1.8Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iohex0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioarrayref0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioff0.14.0Cargo.toml
crates.iogroup0.14.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioelliptic-curve0.14.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioelliptic-curve-tools0.3.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioark-bls12-3810.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioark-ec0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioark-ff0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioark-serialize0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iorand0.8Cargo.toml
crates.ionum-bigint0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ionum-traits0.2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 26

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioark-bls12-381—direct
crates.ioark-ec—direct
crates.ioark-ff—direct
crates.ioark-serialize—direct
crates.ioarrayref—direct
crates.ioelliptic-curve—direct
crates.ioelliptic-curve-tools—direct
crates.ioff—direct
crates.iogroup—direct
crates.iohex—direct
crates.ionum-bigint—direct
crates.ionum-traits—direct
crates.iopairing—direct
crates.iorand—direct
crates.iorand_core—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.iosha2—direct
crates.iosubtle—direct
crates.iozeroize—direct
crates.ioark-poly—indirect
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.iorand_xorshift—indirect
crates.ioserde_bare—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—indirect
crates.iosha3—indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-test—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 mikelodder7/blstrs. Read them side by side →

89equilibriumco/pathfinderA Starknet full node written in RustExcellent88RustCrypto/crypto-bigintCryptography-oriented big integer library with constant-time, stack-allocated (no_std-friendly) implementations of modern formulasExcellent81brndnmtthws/dryocDon't Roll Your Own Crypto: pure-Rust, hard to misuse cryptography libraryExcellent81IronCoreLabs/recrypt-rsA set of cryptographic primitives for building a multi-hop Proxy Re-encryption scheme, known as Transform Encryption.Excellent77LFDT-Lockness/givreThreshold Schnorr Signatures based on FROST in RustGood73jmlepisto/clatterno_std compatible, pure Rust implementation of the Noise protocol framework with post-quantum supportGood

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.