Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 00:06 UTC

servo / rust-layers

A GPU-accelerated 2D animation library for Rust

RustCustom license★ 62 stars⑂ 40 forkssince Jun 2012archivedView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

servo/rust-layers holds a health index of 14 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (76/100) and lowest on Vitality (20/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

14
overall / 100
Critical

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.

14
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 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ServoOrganization
1,253 followers193 public repossince Oct 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
crates.iolayers0.1.0313883 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

20At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 2,807 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push2,807
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

48Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 8 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,601 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~29.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv0.5.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release3,601
mean_days_between_releases29.9
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

48Weak
How it's scored
29/60Stars — 62 stars
13.3/25Forks — 40 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks40
stars62
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

76Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

78Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 18% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.178

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good
How it's scored
29.4/42Issue resolution — 70% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 213/234 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs213
open_issues3
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.7
closed_unmerged_prs21
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.

Ownership & stewardship

97Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
22.3/25Owner reach — 1,253 followers of servo
25/25Track record — 193 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,253
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginservo
public_repos193
account_age_days5,024
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

53Moderate
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 3,883 days ago
4/20Version history — 1 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslayers
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3,883

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

27At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/layers
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/layers
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

32At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

32At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project is archived
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

25At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

15Critical
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes32,663
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

62GitHub stars
30contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,807days since last push
8releases
3bus factor
3open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 00:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 12/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iolibc0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iorustc-serialize0.3.16Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.3.4Cargo.toml
crates.iogleam0.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioeuclid0.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioservo-skia0.20130412.23Cargo.toml
crates.ioheapsize>=0.2.2, <0.4Cargo.toml
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioeuclid—direct
crates.iogleam—direct
crates.ioheapsize—direct
crates.iolibc—direct
crates.iolog—direct
crates.iorustc-serialize—direct
crates.ioservo-skia—direct
crates.iocgl—indirect
crates.iocore-foundation—indirect
crates.ioglx—indirect
crates.ioio-surface—indirect
crates.ioservo-egl—indirect
crates.iox11—indirect
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 servo/rust-layers. Read them side by side →

100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional100microsoft/onnxruntimeONNX Runtime: cross-platform, high performance ML inferencing and training acceleratorExceptional100wandb/wandbThe AI developer platform. Use Weights & Biases to train and fine-tune models, and manage models from experimentation to production.Exceptional100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional99rolldown/rolldownFast Rust bundler for JavaScript/TypeScript with Rollup-compatible API.Exceptional99ai-dynamo/dynamoA Datacenter Scale Distributed Inference Serving FrameworkExceptional

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io.