Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-26 18:09 UTC

rust-osdev / x86_64

Library to program x86_64 hardware.

RustApache-2.0★ 936 stars⑂ 154 forkssince Nov 2015View on GitHub ↗

rust-osdev/x86_64 holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (54/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rust OSDevOrganization
1,125 followers31 public repossince Jan 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iox86_640.15.5259,37913415 days agoamd64no-stdx86x86-64
crates.iotestingpoints to another repo — not scored25.0.0248,5302088 days ago

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 6 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence17/52 weeks with commits
16.8/18Commit volume73 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year73
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases99 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 15 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~114.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count99
latest_release_tagv0.15.5
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release15
mean_days_between_releases114.1
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?

69Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.2/60Stars936 stars
18.2/25Forks154 forks
6.7/15Watchers17 watchers
Inputs used
forks154
stars936
watchers17
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
72.2/80Monthly downloads259,379 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesx86_64
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads4,716,660
monthly_downloads259,379
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?

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth76 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 54 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled76
top_contributor_share0.436
How it's scored
36/42Issue resolution86% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance382/429 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs382
open_issues23
closed_issues137
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.856
closed_unmerged_prs47
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
21.9/25Owner reach1,125 followers of rust-osdev
23/25Track record31 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,125
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginrust-osdev
public_repos31
account_age_days3,101
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 15 days ago
20/20Version history134 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesx86_64
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish15

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 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
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/x86_64
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.rs/x86_64
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/x86_64
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

82Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 54 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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate7.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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_packages5
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:x86_64@0.15.5 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 5 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)
30.9/40Legible commit history55 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.579
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, testing/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
8/8Automated maintenance5 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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, testing/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
53.7/55Manageable file sizes1/42 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes70,585
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

936GitHub stars
76contributors
73commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
99releases
2bus factor
23open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • crates package 'testing' points at a different repository (https://github.com/swc-project/swc.git); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 154 ⇿
0Stars
154Forks
99Releases

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.

025507510012515015042017-042021-122026-07
Major 0Minor 16Patch 81

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.8 / 10
7.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-26 18:09 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
5CI-Tests3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 54 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 2 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iobit_field0.10.1Cargo.toml
crates.iobitflags2.3.2Cargo.toml
crates.iovolatile0.4.4Cargo.toml
crates.iorustversion1.0.5Cargo.toml
crates.iodep_const_fn0.4.11Cargo.toml
crates.iobootloader0.9.10testing/Cargo.toml
crates.iouart_165500.2.8testing/Cargo.toml
crates.iospin0.5.0testing/Cargo.toml
crates.iox86_64testing/Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy_static1.3.0testing/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobit_fielddirect
crates.iobitflagsdirect
crates.iobootloaderdirect
crates.iolazy_staticdirect
crates.iorustversiondirect
crates.iospindirect
crates.iouart_16550direct
crates.iovolatiledirect
crates.ioconst_fnindirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:x86_64@0.15.5 pulls in 5 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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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