Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 14:52 UTC

ntex-rs / ntex-mqtt

MQTT Client/Server framework for v5 and v3.1.1 protocols

RustApache-2.0★ 374 stars⑂ 70 forkssince Feb 2019View on GitHub ↗

ntex-rs/ntex-mqtt holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Security (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ntex-rsOrganization
121 followers10 public repossince Mar 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iontex-mqtt8.2.13,5442040 days agoiotmessagingmqttnetwork-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
18/36Commit cadence26/52 weeks with commits
15.5/18Commit volume52 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year52
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year26

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 79 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~10.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv8.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release79
mean_days_between_releases10.7
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.7/60Stars374 stars
15.3/25Forks70 forks
5/15Watchers9 watchers
Inputs used
forks70
stars374
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.3/80Monthly downloads3,544 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesntex-mqtt
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads314,054
monthly_downloads3,544
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 81% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.806
How it's scored
40.4/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance175/183 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs175
open_issues2
closed_issues51
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.962
closed_unmerged_prs8
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15/25Owner reach121 followers of ntex-rs
19.6/25Track record10 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers121
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginntex-rs
public_repos10
account_age_days2,360

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history204 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesntex-mqtt
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configrustfmt.toml
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_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/ntex-mqtt
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, mqtt, mqtt-server, mqtt-client
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/ntex-mqtt
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history82 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.82
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configrustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
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_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
54.3/55Manageable file sizes1/75 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes64,797
source_files_sampled75
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
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

374GitHub stars
18contributors
52commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
2open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 70 ⇿
0Stars
70Forks
100Releases

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.

20304050607069222020-012023-052026-08
Major 8Minor 32Patch 43

Each point covers 7 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 · 2026-09-06 14:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iontex-bytes1.9.0Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-codec1.2Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-error2.5Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-io4.0.0-beta.2Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-net4.0.0-beta.0Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-service5.0.0-beta.7Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-router1Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-rt3.17Cargo.toml
crates.iontex-util4.0.0-beta.6Cargo.toml
crates.iobitflags2Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iopin-project-lite0.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 23

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobitflagsdirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.iontex-bytesdirect
crates.iontex-codecdirect
crates.iontex-errordirect
crates.iontex-iodirect
crates.iontex-netdirect
crates.iontex-routerdirect
crates.iontex-rtdirect
crates.iontex-servicedirect
crates.iontex-utildirect
crates.iopin-project-litedirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_jsondirect
crates.iothiserrordirect
crates.ioenv_loggerindirect
crates.iontexindirect
crates.iontex-serverindirect
crates.iontex-tlsindirect
crates.iooneshotindirect
crates.ioopensslindirect
crates.iorandindirect
crates.iotest-caseindirect
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.

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 statisticscrates.io.