Public record
Software health reportschema 0.23.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 20:37 UTC

mindeng / nom-exif

Exif/metadata parsing library written in pure Rust, both image (JPEG, PNG, HEIC/HEIF, AVIF, TIFF, Phase One IIQ, Fujifilm RAF, Canon CR3) and video/audio (MP4, MOV, 3GP, MKV, WEBM, MKA) files are supported.

RustMIT★ 117 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Feb 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#exif#heif#jpeg#metadata#mp4#nom#parser#quicktime#rust#matroska#mkv#webm#mov#raw#tiff#cr3

mindeng/nom-exif holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Security (43/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Min DengPersonal account
39 followers70 public repossince Jul 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.ionom-exif3.6.112,569551 day agoexifmetadataparsingparser-implementations

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 274 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year274
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 48 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 40 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count48
latest_release_tagnom-exif-v3.6.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release40
mean_days_between_releases3.4

Community & Adoption

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

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak
How it's scored
33.5/60Stars — 117 stars
9.8/25Forks — 16 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars117
watchers2
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

68Good
How it's scored
54.7/80Monthly downloads — 12,569 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesnom-exif
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads155,187
monthly_downloads12,569
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.942

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good
How it's scored
38.8/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance — 18/20 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs18
open_issues3
closed_issues36
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.923
closed_unmerged_prs2
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.

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.5/25Owner reach — 39 followers of mindeng
25/25Track record — 70 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers39
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmindeng
public_repos70
account_age_days5,482
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 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 55 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesnom-exif
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://crates.io/crates/nom-exif
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 16 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsexif, heif, jpeg, metadata, mp4, nom, parser, quicktime, rust, matroska, mkv, webm, mov, raw, tiff, cr3
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/nom-exif
docs_sitehttps://crates.io/crates/nom-exif
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
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
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 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 — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.3
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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, crates/rexiftool/Cargo.toml, fuzz/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, crates/rexiftool/Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/45 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes87,944
source_files_sampled45
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

117GitHub stars
11contributors
274commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
48releases
1bus factor
3open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 117 ★ / 16 ⇿
117Stars
16Forks
44Releases

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.

02040608010012011716142024-072025-072026-07
Major 2Minor 14Patch 21

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 20:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 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 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ionom8.0Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0.11Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1.10Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1.40Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.40.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.7.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioiso6709parse0.1.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobytes—direct
crates.iochrono—direct
crates.ioiso6709parse—direct
crates.ionom—direct
crates.ioregex—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.iothiserror—direct
crates.iotokio—direct
crates.iotracing—direct
crates.ioafl—indirect
crates.ioclap—indirect
crates.ionom-exif—indirect
crates.iorand—indirect
crates.ioserde_json—indirect
crates.iotest-case—indirect
crates.iotracing-subscriber—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 mindeng/nom-exif. Read them side by side →

96tree-sitter/tree-sitterAn incremental parsing system for programming toolsExceptional94lovell/sharpHigh performance Node.js image processing, the fastest module to resize JPEG, PNG, WebP, AVIF and TIFF images. Uses the libvips library.Exceptional98boa-dev/boaBoa is an embeddable Javascript engine written in Rust.Exceptional98maplibre/martinBlazing fast and lightweight PostGIS, MBtiles and PMtiles tile server, tile generation, and mbtiles tooling.Exceptional97swc-project/swcRust-based platform for the WebExceptional97wasmerio/wasmer🚀 Fast, secure, lightweight containers based on WebAssemblyExceptional

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 v0.23.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io.