Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 19:03 UTC

shiguredo / toml-rs

TOML Library

RustApache-2.0★ 23 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗

shiguredo/toml-rs holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (42/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

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

Ownership

時雨堂 (shiguredo)Organization · verified domain
716 followers150 public repossince Oct 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioshiguredo_toml2026.2.07,4261110 days ago—
crates.iopbtpoints to another repo — not scored0.5.12674694 days agopropertyfuzztestarbitraryproptestsecuritydata-structuresalgorithmsmathematics

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume — 81 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year81
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~25.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tag2026.3.0-canary.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases25.1
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.8/60Stars — 23 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars23
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.6/80Monthly downloads — 7,426 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesshiguredo_toml
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads50,338
monthly_downloads7,426
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
22.5/30PR acceptance — 6/8 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
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): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
20.5/25Owner reach — 716 followers of shiguredo
25/25Track record — 150 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers716
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginshiguredo
public_repos150
account_age_days5,119

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesshiguredo_toml
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 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 site — https://docs.rs/shiguredo_toml
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrust, toml, zero-dependency, no-std, sans-io
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/shiguredo_toml
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 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
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages67
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 67 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
10.5/40Legible commit history — 16 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.198
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,639
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 81
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml, pbt/Cargo.toml, tools/toml-test-adapter/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
53.3/55Manageable file sizes — 1/33 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes67,050
source_files_sampled33
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

23GitHub stars
1contributors
81commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

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 · 2026-10-19 19:03 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ionoprop0.2pbt/Cargo.toml
crates.ioshiguredo_toml—pbt/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 66 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ionoprop—direct
crates.ionoprop0.2.0direct
crates.ioanyhow1.0.102indirect
crates.ioarbitrary1.4.2indirect
crates.iobitflags2.11.1indirect
crates.iocc1.2.56indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.ioconsole0.16.3indirect
crates.ioderive_arbitrary1.4.2indirect
crates.ioencode_unicode1.0.0indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.iofastrand2.4.1indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.9indirect
crates.iofoldhash0.1.5indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.3.4indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.2indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.15.5indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.17.1indirect
crates.ioheck0.5.0indirect
crates.ioid-arena2.3.0indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.14.0indirect
crates.ioinsta1.48.0indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.18indirect
crates.iojobserver0.1.34indirect
crates.ioleb128fmt0.1.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.182indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys0.4.13indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.iolog0.4.29indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.0indirect
crates.ionojson0.3.15indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioprettyplease0.2.37indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.44indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.45indirect
crates.ior-efi5.3.0indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.4indirect
crates.iosemver1.0.28indirect
crates.ioserde1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_json1.0.149indirect
crates.ioshlex1.3.0indirect
crates.iosimilar2.7.0indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.117indirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iounicode-xid0.2.6indirect
crates.iowasip21.0.2+wasi-0.2.9indirect
crates.iowasip21.0.3+wasi-0.2.9indirect
crates.iowasip30.4.0+wasi-0.3.0-rc-2026-01-06indirect
crates.iowasm-encoder0.244.0indirect
crates.iowasm-metadata0.244.0indirect
crates.iowasmparser0.244.0indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen0.57.1indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-core0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rust0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rust-macro0.51.0indirect
crates.iowit-component0.244.0indirect
crates.iowit-parser0.244.0indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.21indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 67 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
anyhow1.0.102indirectunknown11.0.103

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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