Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-14 18:46 UTC

phip1611 / tar-no-std

Library to read Tar archives (by GNU Tar) in `no_std` contexts with zero allocations. The crate is simple and only supports reading of "basic" archives, therefore no extensions, such as GNU Longname.

RustMIT★ 19 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗

phip1611/tar-no-std holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Philipp SchusterPersonal account
152 followers139 public repossince Oct 2013@cyberus-technology

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.iotar-no-std0.5.054,003201 day agoarchivetartarballdata-structuresparser-implementationsno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence15/52 weeks with commits
16.3/18Commit volume65 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year65
human_commit_share0.65
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~203.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases203.4
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?

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.4/60Stars19 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars19
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63.1/80Monthly downloads54,003 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestar-no-std
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads713,774
monthly_downloads54,003
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 95% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.948
How it's scored
36.8/42Issue resolution88% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance57/59 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance4/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs57
open_issues1
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d7
prs_decided_7d7
prs_merged_30d7
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.875
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
15.7/25Owner reach152 followers of phip1611
25/25Track record139 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers152
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginphip1611
public_repos139
account_age_days4,680
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 history20 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestar-no-std
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/tar-no-std
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbare-metal, rust, tar
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/tar-no-std
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 8 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
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_aggregate6.2
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages6
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:tar-no-std@0.5.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 6 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.

68Good · 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 history56 of 65 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.862
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance20 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.2
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes36,010
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0
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

19GitHub stars
6contributors
65commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks
5Releases

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.

12345512023-082024-112026-01
Major 0Minor 1Patch 4

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-14 18:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 4/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is 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
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.iobitflags2.12Cargo.toml
crates.iolog~0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ionum-traits~0.2Cargo.toml
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobitflags2.13.0direct
crates.iobitflags2.13.1direct
crates.iolog0.4.27direct
crates.iolog0.4.33direct
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19direct
crates.ioaho-corasick1.1.3indirect
crates.ioanstream0.6.20indirect
crates.ioanstyle1.0.11indirect
crates.ioanstyle-parse0.2.7indirect
crates.ioanstyle-query1.1.4indirect
crates.ioanstyle-wincon3.0.10indirect
crates.ioarbitrary1.4.2indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.0indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.iocc1.4.2indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.iocolorchoice1.0.4indirect
crates.ioenv_filter0.1.3indirect
crates.ioenv_logger0.11.8indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.10indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.3indirect
crates.iois_terminal_polyfill1.70.1indirect
crates.iojiff0.2.15indirect
crates.iojiff-static0.2.15indirect
crates.iojobserver0.1.35indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.189indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys0.4.13indirect
crates.iomemchr2.7.5indirect
crates.ioonce_cell_polyfill1.70.1indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic1.11.1indirect
crates.ioportable-atomic-util0.2.4indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.95indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.40indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.ioregex1.11.1indirect
crates.ioregex-automata0.4.9indirect
crates.ioregex-syntax0.8.5indirect
crates.ioserde1.0.219indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.219indirect
crates.ioshlex2.0.1indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.104indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.18indirect
crates.ioutf8parse0.2.2indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.1.3indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.60.2indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.53.3indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.53.0indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.53.0indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.53.0indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnullvm0.53.0indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.53.0indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.53.0indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.53.0indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.53.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:tar-no-std@0.5.0 pulls in 6 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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