Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 12:44 UTC

seanchatmangpt / chicago-tdd-tools

Chicago TDD testing framework and tools for Rust projects

HTML · RustNo license detected★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Nov 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

seanchatmangpt/chicago-tdd-tools holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (76/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (25/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sean ChatmanPersonal account
54 followers260 public repossince Jun 2023

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.iochicago-tdd-tools26.8.33,806140 days agochicago-tddtddtest-frameworktesting
crates.iochicago-tdd-tools-proc-macros26.7.13,8281434 days agochicago-tddproc-macrotddtesting

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 285 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_year285
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

80Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 3 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 53 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~104.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv26.6.11
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release53
mean_days_between_releases104.5
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?

25At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

65Good
How it's scored
51.8/80Monthly downloads — 7,634 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageschicago-tdd-tools, chicago-tdd-tools-proc-macros
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads43,653
monthly_downloads7,634
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?

48Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 58% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.577

Issue & PR responsiveness

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
14.8/30PR acceptance — 35/71 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs35
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs36
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

52Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.5/25Owner reach — 54 followers of seanchatmangpt
19.3/25Track record — 260 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers54
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginseanchatmangpt
public_repos260
account_age_days1,148
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 14 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageschicago-tdd-tools, chicago-tdd-tools-proc-macros
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/chicago-tdd-tools
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/chicago-tdd-tools
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not 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 — no data
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, SAST, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

76Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .cursor/rules/chicago-tdd-standards.mdc, .cursorrules, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 95 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_files.cursor/rules/chicago-tdd-standards.mdc, .cursorrules, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes12,304

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

68Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Justfile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesJustfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.09
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crates/chicago-claims/Cargo.toml, crates/chicago-lints/Cargo.toml, crates/chicago-tdd-lsp/Cargo.toml, crates/chicago-tdd-mcp/Cargo.toml, playground/Cargo.toml, proc_macros/Cargo.toml, proc_macros/chicago-tdd-mcp-macros/Cargo.toml, spec-harness/Cargo.toml, standards/chicago-tdd/generated/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — HTML without a type-check config
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 5/300 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes1,688,386
source_files_sampled300
oversized_source_files5

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — cookbook, examples, samples
Inputs used
example_dirscookbook, examples, samples
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

1GitHub stars
2contributors
285commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
0open 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 'chicago-tdd-tools-playground' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'chatman-spec-harness' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index crates:chicago-tdd-tools@26.8.3; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 12:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/aCI-Testsinternal error: internal error: Client.Repositories.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-08-04T12:44:35Z. Please include `A6DE:5679F:735E624:6E212A9:6A71DEB0` when reporting this issue.
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not 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
n/aSASTinternal error: internal error: Client.Checks.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-08-04T12:44:35Z. Please include `A6DE:5679F:735E624:6E212A9:6A71DEB0` when reporting this issue.
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 59
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iolsp-types0.94Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures^0.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_yaml0.9Cargo.toml
crates.iotoml0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid^1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iosha2^0.10Cargo.toml
crates.iohex^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror^2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotestcontainers^0.27Cargo.toml
crates.iolog^0.4Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest^0.11Cargo.toml
crates.iotempfile^3.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioopentelemetry^0.31Cargo.toml
crates.ioopentelemetry_sdk^0.31Cargo.toml
crates.ioopentelemetry-otlp^0.31Cargo.toml
crates.ioinsta^1.40Cargo.toml
crates.ioproptest^1.5Cargo.toml
crates.ioarbitrary^1.4Cargo.toml
crates.iofake^3.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioloom^0.7Cargo.toml
crates.iowasm4pm-compat26.6.26Cargo.toml
crates.ioblake31Cargo.toml
crates.iodashmap^6.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing^0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iorstest^0.19Cargo.toml
crates.iotrycmd^0.15Cargo.toml
crates.iogit2^0.20Cargo.toml
crates.iochicago-tdd-tools-proc-macros26.7.1Cargo.toml
crates.iopraxis-graphlaw—playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iochicago-tdd-tools26.6.11playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio^1.0playground/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde^1.0playground/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json^1.0playground/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_yaml^0.9playground/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap^4.5playground/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap-noun-verb3.7.1playground/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap-noun-verb-macros3.7.1playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iolinkme0.3playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid^1.0playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono^0.4playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror^2.0playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iotempfile^3.0playground/Cargo.toml
crates.iosyn2.0proc_macros/Cargo.toml
crates.ioquote1.0proc_macros/Cargo.toml
crates.ioproc-macro21.0proc_macros/Cargo.toml
crates.iochicago-tdd-tools26.7.1spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde^1.0spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json^1.0spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha2^0.10spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.iohex^0.4spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid^1.0spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono^0.4spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.ioproptest^1.5spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.iogit2^0.20spec-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.iochicago-tdd-tools-proc-macros26.7.1spec-harness/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

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with seanchatmangpt/chicago-tdd-tools. Read them side by side →

97microsoft/testfxThis repository holds the source code of Microsoft.Testing.Platform (MTP), a lightweight alternative to VSTest, as well as MSTest adapter and framework.Exceptional96mochajs/mocha☕️ Classic, reliable, trusted test framework for Node.js and the browserExceptional94nunit/nunitNUnit FrameworkExceptional88catchorg/Catch2A modern, C++-native, test framework for unit-tests, TDD and BDD - using C++14, C++17 and later (C++11 support is in v2.x branch, and C++03 on the Catch1.x branch)Excellent98dequelabs/axe-coreAccessibility engine for automated Web UI testingExceptional98infection/infectionPHP Mutation Testing libraryExceptional

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 statistics — crates.io.