Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 17:44 UTC

oxc-project / oxc-toml

Taplo forked for Oxfmt

RustMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 1 forksince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗

oxc-project/oxc-toml holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

oxcOrganization · verified domain

1,235 followers65 public repossince Nov 2023

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	oxc-toml	0.14.6	18,375	7	26 days ago	formatter toml parsing parser-implementations

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

87Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
22.8/36	Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 168 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	168
human_commit_share	0.32
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	33

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 5 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 26 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~53.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	5
latest_release_tag	v0.14.6
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	26
mean_days_between_releases	53.7

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?

41Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

14Critical

How it's scored

13.7/60	Stars — 8 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	8
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

71Good

How it's scored

56.9/80	Monthly downloads — 18,375 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	oxc-toml
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	100,025
monthly_downloads	18,375
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?

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

22At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5	Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	2
top_contributor_share	0.987

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.5/30	PR acceptance — 124/126 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	124
open_issues	0
closed_issues	2
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	3
prs_decided_30d	3
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

91Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
22.2/25	Owner reach — 1,235 followers of oxc-project
18.6/25	Track record — 65 public repos, account ~2 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,235
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	oxc-project
public_repos	65
account_age_days	1,021

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 26 days ago
20/20	Version history — 7 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	oxc-toml
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	26

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .clippy.toml, .rustfmt.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/oxc-toml
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/oxc-toml
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

67Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	49
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 49 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 32 of 32 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .clippy.toml, .rustfmt.toml
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 65 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	justfile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.06
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.65

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/13 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	37,282
source_files_sampled	13
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

8GitHub stars

2contributors

168commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

5releases

1bus factor

0open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.7 / 10

6.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 17:44 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 1/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	aho-corasick	`1.1.4`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.10.0`	indirect
crates.io	bstr	`1.12.1`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	console	`0.16.3`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-deque	`0.8.6`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-epoch	`0.9.20`	indirect
crates.io	crossbeam-utils	`0.8.21`	indirect
crates.io	encode_unicode	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	errno	`0.3.14`	indirect
crates.io	fastrand	`2.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.3.4`	indirect
crates.io	globset	`0.4.18`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.16.1`	indirect
crates.io	ignore	`0.4.33`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`2.13.1`	indirect
crates.io	insta	`1.48.0`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.178`	indirect
crates.io	linux-raw-sys	`0.11.0`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.29`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.6`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.103`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.42`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`5.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	regex-automata	`0.4.18`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.8.8`	indirect
crates.io	rustix	`1.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	same-file	`1.0.6`	indirect
crates.io	serde	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_spanned	`1.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	similar	`2.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.111`	indirect
crates.io	tempfile	`3.23.0`	indirect
crates.io	toml	`1.1.4+spec-1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	toml_datetime	`1.1.1+spec-1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	toml_parser	`1.1.3+spec-1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	toml_writer	`1.1.2+spec-1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.22`	indirect
crates.io	walkdir	`2.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	wasip2	`1.0.1+wasi-0.2.4`	indirect
crates.io	winapi-util	`0.1.11`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	winnow	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen	`0.46.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 49 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records