Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-22 15:45 UTC

nervosnetwork / ckb-vm

CKB's vm, based on open source RISC-V ISA

Rust · AssemblyMIT★ 422 stars⑂ 93 forkssince Nov 2018View on GitHub ↗

nervosnetwork/ckb-vm holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (83/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated 13 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

81
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

Nervos NetworkOrganization
477 followers239 public repossince Jan 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
crates.iockb-vm0.24.1526,1425849 days ago
crates.iockb-vm-definitions0.24.1526,0505549 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 13 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume — 32 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push13
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 55 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 49 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~122.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count55
latest_release_tagv0.24.15
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release49
mean_days_between_releases122.5

Community & Adoption

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

71Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.6/60Stars — 422 stars
16.4/25Forks — 93 forks
6.8/15Watchers — 18 watchers
Inputs used
forks93
stars422
watchers18
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, dev.azure.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
62.9/80Monthly downloads — 52,192 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesckb-vm, ckb-vm-definitions
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads1,732,960
monthly_downloads52,192
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
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 — 21 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.547
How it's scored
34.2/42Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance — 441/488 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs441
open_issues8
closed_issues35
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.814
closed_unmerged_prs47
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
19.3/25Owner reach — 477 followers of nervosnetwork
25/25Track record — 239 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers477
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginnervosnetwork
public_repos239
account_age_days3,205

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 49 days ago
20/20Version history — 58 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesckb-vm, ckb-vm-definitions
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish49

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
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_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.nervos.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnervos, ckb, blockchain, rust, riscv, smart-contract
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.nervos.org/
docs_sitehttps://www.nervos.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsCargo.toml, definitions/Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno

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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages13
affected_by_severitynone
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 3 resolved dependencies against OSV. 13 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.

83Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,568
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), rustfmt.toml
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 — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, definitions/Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/82 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes49,895
source_files_sampled82
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

422GitHub stars
21contributors
32commits, last 12 months
13days since last push
55releases
1bus factor
8open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb-vm: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-10-22T15:45:20Z. Please include `8A4E:3C3A8C:88A7C66:C65A70F:6ADA2F8C` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 93 ⇿
0Stars
93Forks
55Releases

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.

0204060801009042018-112022-112026-10
Major 0Minor 11Patch 34

Each point covers 8 days.

Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iobytes1Cargo.toml
crates.iogoblin_v023=0.2.3Cargo.toml
crates.iogoblin_v040=0.4.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioscroll0.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iockb-vm-definitions=0.24.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioderive_more1Cargo.toml
crates.iopaste0.2.1definitions/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobytes—direct
crates.iockb-vm-definitions0.24.0direct
crates.ioderive_more—direct
crates.ioscroll—direct
crates.ioserde—direct
crates.ioargparse—indirect
crates.iobuddy-alloc—indirect
crates.iocc—indirect
crates.ioclang-finder—indirect
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.iogoblin0.2.3indirect
crates.iogoblin0.4.0indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys—indirect
crates.iopastey—indirect
crates.ioproptest—indirect
crates.iospike-sys—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 13 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.