Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 12:22 UTC

pellegre / libcrafter

A Rust library for constructing, sending, capturing, and decoding network packets

Rust · PythonMIT★ 312 stars⑂ 87 forkssince Oct 2012View on GitHub ↗

pellegre/libcrafter holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (52/100). It was last updated 2 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

Esteban PellegrinoPersonal account
56 followers4 public repossince Apr 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iocrafter0.3.436622 days agonetworkingpacket-craftingpacketspcaptestingdevelopment-toolsnetwork-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 3,039 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year3,039
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 5 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 22 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv0.3.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases5.2
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.4/60Stars — 312 stars
16.1/25Forks — 87 forks
8.1/15Watchers — 30 watchers
Inputs used
forks87
stars312
watchers30
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
20.9/80Monthly downloads — 36 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescrafter
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads108
monthly_downloads36
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.975
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
24/30PR acceptance — 68/85 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs68
open_issues0
closed_issues25
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs17
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.6/25Owner reach — 56 followers of pellegre
17.1/25Track record — 4 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers56
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginpellegre
public_repos4
account_age_days5,233
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 22 days ago
20/20Version history — 6 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescrafter
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish22

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/crafter
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslibpcap, network-programming, networking, packet-crafting, packet-decoder, packet-parsing, packet-sniffing, packets, pcap, rust
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.rs/crafter
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/crafter
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/1 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages25
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 25 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.

79Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,118
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, crafter/Cargo.toml, tools/flow/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crafter/Cargo.toml, tools/flow/Cargo.toml, tools/oracle/adapters/Cargo.toml, tools/probe/adapters/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
51/55Manageable file sizes — 80/1,110 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes582,011
source_files_sampled1,110
oversized_source_files80
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/ble.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/device.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/dot15d4.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/generic.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/whad.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filescrafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/ble.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/device.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/dot15d4.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/generic.proto, crafter/src/wire/backend/whad/proto/whad.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

312GitHub stars
9contributors
3,039commits, last 12 months
2days 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

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 87 ⇿
0Stars
87Forks

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.

0204060801008552013-022019-072025-11

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 12:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 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 0/1 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
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
3Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 20
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioaes0.8crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaes-gcm0.11crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iocbc0.1crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.ioccm0.5crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iochacha200.10crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iochacha20poly13050.11crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.4crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.ioctr0.9crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iohmac0.12crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iomd-50.10crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iopcap2.4.0crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iopbkdf20.12crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iopnet_datalink0.35.0crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iopnet_packet0.35.0crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iopnet_transport0.35.0crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost0.13crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserialport4.9.0crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha10.10crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10crafter/Cargo.toml
crates.iosubtle2crafter/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 20 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioaesdirect
crates.ioaes-gcmdirect
crates.iocbcdirect
crates.ioccmdirect
crates.iochacha20direct
crates.iochacha20poly1305direct
crates.iocipherdirect
crates.ioctrdirect
crates.iohmacdirect
crates.iomd-5direct
crates.iopbkdf2direct
crates.iopcapdirect
crates.iopnet_datalinkdirect
crates.iopnet_packetdirect
crates.iopnet_transportdirect
crates.ioprostdirect
crates.ioserialportdirect
crates.iosha1direct
crates.iosha2direct
crates.iosubtledirect
crates.iobytesindirect
crates.ioproptestindirect
crates.ioprost-buildindirect
crates.ioquinn-proto0.11.14indirect
crates.iorustls0.23.5indirect
crates.ioserdeindirect
crates.ioserde_jsonindirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 25 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
quinn-proto0.11.14indirecthigh20.11.15

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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