Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 20:59 UTC

mmore500 / downstream

downstream provides efficient, constant-space implementations of stream curation algorithms.

TeXMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2024View on GitHub ↗

mmore500/downstream holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (62/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (11/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Matthew Andres MorenoPersonal account
72 followers351 public repossince Jan 2015@umich

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.iodownstream1.24.143420 days agosciencealgorithmsmemory-managementdata-structures

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

55Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
16/18Commit volume — 59 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year59
human_commit_share0.4
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 939 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.4.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release939
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?

30At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges13
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
21.9/80Monthly downloads — 43 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdownstream
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads10,249
monthly_downloads43
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
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.739
How it's scored
38.2/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 112/117 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_prs112
open_issues2
closed_issues20
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d7
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.909
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
13.4/25Owner reach — 72 followers of mmore500
25/25Track record — 351 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers72
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmmore500
public_repos351
account_age_days4,281
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 42 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdownstream
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://mmore500.github.io/downstream/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://mmore500.github.io/downstream/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 19 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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
advisories38
affected_packages8
assessed_packages37
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severityhigh 3, moderate 4, low 1
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 37 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

11Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.7/40Legible commit history — 5 of 40 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.125
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — TeX without a type-check config
0/55Manageable file sizes — no source files detected
Inputs used
primary_languageTeX
largest_source_bytes—
source_files_sampled0
oversized_source_files0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Manageable file sizes. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
59commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
2open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index crates:downstream@1.24.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 20:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Vulnerabilities19 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ionum-traits0.2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 38

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ionum-traits—direct
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIbracex2.5.post1indirect
PyPIcertifi2025.1.31indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.1indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIgriffe1.7.0indirect
PyPIidna3.10indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.7indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.2indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs1.6.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-autorefs1.4.1indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.0indirect
PyPImkdocs-include-markdown-plugin7.1.5indirect
PyPImkdocs-material9.6.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImkdocstrings0.29.0indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python1.14.4indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.7indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.1indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions10.14.3indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag0.1indirect
PyPIregex2024.11.6indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.3indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.3.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
PyPIwcmatch10.0indirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 37 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
markdown3.7indirecthigh23.8.1
pymdown-extensions10.14.3indirecthigh811.0.1
urllib32.3.0indirecthigh162.8.0
idna3.10indirectmoderate23.15
mkdocs-include-markdown-plugin7.1.5indirectmoderate27.1.8
mkdocs-material9.6.2indirectmoderate29.7.7
requests2.32.3indirectmoderate42.33.0
pygments2.19.1indirectlow22.20.0

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.