Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-11 08:05 UTC

rodrimati1992 / const_format_crates

Compile-time string formatting

RustZlib★ 275 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Aug 2020View on GitHub ↗

rodrimati1992/const_format_crates holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (63/100) and lowest on Vitality (34/100). It was last updated 116 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

rodrimati1992Personal account
27 followers50 public repossince Mar 2016

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.ioconst_format0.2.369,886,61540116 days agoconcatformatno-stdtext-processing
crates.ioconst_format_proc_macros0.2.349,070,30116612 days agoconcatformatno-stdtext-processing

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

34At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 116 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence2/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18Commit volume14 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year14
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push116
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases11 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 612 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~172.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tag0.2.34
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release612
mean_days_between_releases172.1
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.5/60Stars275 stars
9/25Forks13 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks13
stars275
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Zlib)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads18,956,916 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesconst_format, const_format_proc_macros
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads263,651,896
monthly_downloads18,956,916
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?

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.981
How it's scored
26.6/42Issue resolution63% of issues closed
28.5/30PR acceptance38/40 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs38
open_issues11
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.633
closed_unmerged_prs2
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 backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.4/25Owner reach27 followers of rodrimati1992
24.4/25Track record50 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers27
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginrodrimati1992
public_repos50
account_age_days3,792
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 116 days ago
20/20Version history40 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesconst_format, const_format_proc_macros
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish116

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/const_format
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmacros, rust
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/const_format
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
19/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: instant 0.1.13 (unknown)
37.2/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 708 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages11
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the crates:const_format@0.2.36 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 11 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.9/40Legible commit history41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.41
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, const_format/Cargo.toml, const_format_proc_macros/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, const_format/Cargo.toml, const_format_proc_macros/Cargo.toml, print_errors/Cargo.toml, print_warnings/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/108 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes45,662
source_files_sampled108
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

275GitHub stars
5contributors
14commits, last 12 months
116days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
11open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'print_errors' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'print_warnings' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 13 ⇿
0Stars
13Forks
10Releases

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.

03581013151322020-092023-072026-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 10

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-11 08:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioconst_format_proc_macros=0.2.34const_format/Cargo.toml
crates.iokonst0.2.20const_format/Cargo.toml
crates.ioquote1.0.7const_format_proc_macros/Cargo.toml
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.19const_format_proc_macros/Cargo.toml
crates.iounicode-xid0.2const_format_proc_macros/Cargo.toml
crates.iosyn1.0.38const_format_proc_macros/Cargo.toml
crates.iocfmtprint_errors/Cargo.toml
crates.ioconst_formatprint_warnings/Cargo.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 1

Installing crates:const_format@0.2.36 pulls in 11 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
instant0.1.13indirectunknown1

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.