# sigp/lighthouse — health index 92/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository sigp/lighthouse by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/sigp/lighthouse
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/sigp/lighthouse/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/s/sigp/lighthouse.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-13
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 97/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 75/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 74/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 52/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 76/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Ethereum consensus client in Rust |
| Classification | library, network-service, cli |
| Homepage | https://lighthouse.sigmaprime.io/ |
| Primary language | Rust |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 3,468 |
| Forks | 1,044 |
| Created | 2018-07-06 |
| Last push | 2026-08-12 |
| Latest release | v8.2.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 574 |
| Bus factor | 3 |
| Topics | ethereum, eth2, proof-of-stake |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | lighthouse | 0.2.1 | 9 |
| crates | directory | 0.0.0 | 24 |
| crates | store | 0.1.0-alpha.3 | 74 |
| crates | timer | 0.2.0 | 425,431 |
| crates | clap_utils | 0.4.3 | 99 |
| crates | client | 0.1.1-beta1 | 50 |

## Vitality — 97/100 (Exceptional)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 96/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 32.5 / 36 | 47/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 574 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 23 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~31.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | partial | 8 / 10 | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 32 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 86/100 (Excellent)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 57.4 / 60 | 3,468 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,044 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 10.2 / 15 | 68 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 75/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 74/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 36 / 54 | 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 15 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 34% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 20 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 34.9 / 42 | 83% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 12.5 / 30 | 2951/7095 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | partial | 4.3 / 13 | 1/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 13.5 / 15 | Found 20/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 92/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| Owner reach | partial | 18.8 / 25 | 410 followers of sigp |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 133 public repos, account ~9 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 69/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 2 package(s) on crates |
| Publish recency | partial | 4 / 35 | latest publish 3073 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 8 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 74/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 74/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 9 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://lighthouse.sigmaprime.io/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 3 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 52/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 57/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | Found 20/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 20 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | partial | 6 / 7.5 | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 20 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 30/100 (At Risk)

Matched the crates:lighthouse@0.2.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 151 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 12.3 / 35 | 1 affected: tokio 0.2.25 (high 8.1) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 2.6 / 25 | 10 affected: hyper 0.10.16 (critical 9.1), hyper 0.13.10 (critical 9.1), traitobject 0.1.1 (critical 9.8), +7 more |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 15.6 / 40 | 11 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2294 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 76/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, testing/ef_tests/Makefile, testing/execution_engine_integration/Makefile, testing/state_transition_vectors/Makefile, validator_client/slashing_protection/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 97/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 52.2 / 55 | 45/898 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 15 authors (cap 12)
- Could not fetch crates package 'lcli' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'slasher' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'boot_node' from its registry
- crates package 'lighthouse' points at a different repository (https://github.com/finnkauski/lighthouse); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch crates package 'beacon_node' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'account_manager' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'database_manager' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'validator_client' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'eth2' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'eip_3076' from its registry
- crates package 'store' points at a different repository (https://github.com/rjsberry/store); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'clap_utils' points at a different repository (https://github.com/tyrchen/clap-utils); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'client' points at a different repository (https://github.com/dravenk/client/); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch crates package 'eth2_config' from its registry

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt