Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 07:44 UTC

oxibus / can-dbc-pest

A Pest-based DBC lexical parser. The DBC format is used to exchange CAN network data.

Just · RustApache-2.0★ 6 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Oct 2025View on GitHub ↗

oxibus/can-dbc-pest holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OxiBUSOrganization
56 followers7 public repossince Sep 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iocan-dbc-pest0.8.1113,588171 day agoautomotivecandbcecuparsingencodingembedded

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
9/36Commit cadence13/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume45 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases15 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~29.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagv0.8.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases29.8
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars6 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars6
watchers1
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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.4/80Monthly downloads113,588 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescan-dbc-pest
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads798,136
monthly_downloads113,588
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 89% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.889
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance38/42 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs38
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
12.6/25Owner reach56 followers of oxibus
8.2/25Track record7 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers56
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginoxibus
public_repos7
account_age_days289
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history17 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescan-dbc-pest
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/can-dbc-pest
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/can-dbc-pest
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests27 out of 27 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
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapjustfile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesjustfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJust without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJust
largest_source_bytes5,391
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

6GitHub stars
4contributors
45commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 07:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 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 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioencoding_rs0.8.35Cargo.toml
crates.iopest2.8.6Cargo.toml
crates.iopest_derive2.8.6Cargo.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

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.