Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-09 15:02 UTC

rust-or / good_lp

Linear Programming for Rust, with a user-friendly API. This crate allows modeling LP problems, and lets you solve them with various solvers.

RustMIT★ 450 stars⑂ 59 forkssince Feb 2021View on GitHub ↗

rust-or/good_lp holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (73/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (54/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

85 followers5 public repossince Feb 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iogood_lp1.15.3301,780633 days agomathsolveroptimizationsymboliclinear-programmingapi-bindingsdata-structuressciencealgorithmsmathematics

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
13.5/18Commit volume31 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year31
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 270 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~594.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv1.14.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release270
mean_days_between_releases594.7

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43/60Stars450 stars
14.7/25Forks59 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks59
stars450
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
73.1/80Monthly downloads301,780 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgood_lp
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads3,782,483
monthly_downloads301,780
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth26 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled26
top_contributor_share0.73
How it's scored
31.9/42Issue resolution76% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance66/74 decided PRs merged
4.3/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs66
open_issues14
closed_issues44
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.759
closed_unmerged_prs8
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
13.9/25Owner reach85 followers of rust-or
16.6/25Track record5 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers85
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginrust-or
public_repos5
account_age_days1,990
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 3 days ago
20/20Version history63 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgood_lp
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 14 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://crates.io/crates/good_lp
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslinear-programs, solvers, lp-modeler, cbc, lpsolve, linear-programming, optimization
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/good_lp
docs_sitehttps://crates.io/crates/good_lp
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 14 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 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.6
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
10/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: quick-xml 0.38.4 (high 7.5)
40/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages129
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the crates:good_lp@1.15.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 129 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
27.7/40Legible commit history52 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.52
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, Dockerfile
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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/25 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes22,231
source_files_sampled25
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

450GitHub stars
26contributors
31commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
14open 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 ★ / 59 ⇿
0Stars
59Forks
2Releases

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.

01020304050605922021-072024-012026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 1

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-09 15:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests14 out of 14 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 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocoin_cbc0.1.9Cargo.toml
crates.iomicrolp0.6.0Cargo.toml
crates.iolpsolve1.0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iohighs2.2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iorusscip0.9.1Cargo.toml
crates.iolp-solvers1.0.0Cargo.toml
crates.iocplex-rs0.1.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioclarabel0.11.0Cargo.toml
crates.iofnv1.0.5Cargo.toml
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioclarabeldirect
crates.iocoin_cbcdirect
crates.iocplex-rsdirect
crates.iofnvdirect
crates.iohighsdirect
crates.iolp-solversdirect
crates.iolpsolvedirect
crates.iomicrolpdirect
crates.iorusscipdirect
crates.iocriterionindirect
crates.iofloat_eqindirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-testindirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing crates:good_lp@1.15.3 pulls in 129 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
quick-xml0.38.4indirecthigh20.41.0

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.