Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-24 06:59 UTC

nymtech / bls12_381

Implementation of the BLS12-381 pairing-friendly elliptic curve group

RustCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jan 2026forkView on GitHub ↗

nymtech/bls12_381 holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Security (54/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (9/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

36
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.

36
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 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

NymOrganization · verified domain
1,919 followers59 public repossince Jun 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
crates.iobls12_381points to another repo — not scored0.9.0395,420148 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

48Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
9/18Commit volume — 9 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year9
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 2 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,430 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~66.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tag0.1.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,430
mean_days_between_releases66.9
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?

9Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.502
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
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_prs0
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, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
23.6/25Owner reach — 1,919 followers of nymtech
24.9/25Track record — 59 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,919
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginnymtech
public_repos59
account_age_days2,660

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall
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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

54Moderate · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
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
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
18.5/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: atty 0.2.14 (low), serde_cbor 0.11.2 (unknown)
36.4/40No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,907 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages86
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitylow 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the crates:bls12_381@0.9.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 86 packages. 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history — 40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.4
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
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)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
52.7/55Manageable file sizes — 1/24 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes65,797
source_files_sampled24
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

0GitHub stars
15contributors
9commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • crates package 'bls12_381' points at a different repository (https://github.com/zkcrypto/bls12_381); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-24 06:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iodigest0.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioff0.14Cargo.toml
crates.iogroup0.14Cargo.toml
crates.iopairing0.24Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_core0.10Cargo.toml
crates.iosubtle2.2.1Cargo.toml
crates.iozeroize1.4Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Dependency advisories 2

Installing crates:bls12_381@0.9.0 pulls in 86 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
atty0.2.14indirectlow3—
serde_cbor0.11.2indirectunknown1—

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.