Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 05:53 UTC

simgine / bevy_replicon

A server-authoritative replication crate for Bevy.

RustApache-2.0★ 639 stars⑂ 53 forkssince Mar 2023View on GitHub ↗

simgine/bevy_replicon holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Security (56/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SimgineOrganization
20 followers17 public repossince Jul 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
31.8/36Commit cadence46/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume349 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year349
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year46

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases96 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~9.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count96
latest_release_tagv0.42.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases9.3
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.5/60Stars639 stars
14.3/25Forks53 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks53
stars639
watchers2
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.3/80Monthly downloads10,005 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbevy_replicon, bevy_replicon_example_backend
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads175,903
monthly_downloads10,005
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth35 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled35
top_contributor_share0.898
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution83% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance564/610 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance3/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 7/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs564
open_issues21
closed_issues105
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs46
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
9.5/25Owner reach20 followers of simgine
17.2/25Track record17 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsimgine
public_repos17
account_age_days1,475
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history104 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbevy_replicon, bevy_replicon_example_backend
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 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
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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 sitehttps://crates.io/crates/bevy_replicon
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbevy, multiplayer, replication, server-authoritative, networking, client-server, netcode
has_wikino
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/bevy_replicon
docs_sitehttps://crates.io/crates/bevy_replicon
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 7/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 0 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
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.8/40Legible commit history32 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.333
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, example_backend/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 maintenance4 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, example_backend/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/105 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes47,669
source_files_sampled105
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

639GitHub stars
35contributors
349commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
96releases
1bus factor
21open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 53 ⇿
0Stars
53Forks
94Releases

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.

01020304050605332023-032024-112026-08
Major 0Minor 41Patch 47

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 05:53 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
9CI-Tests11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 7/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file 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
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iobevy0.19Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4Cargo.toml
crates.iopetgraph0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iovariadics_please2.0Cargo.toml
crates.iotypeid1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1.10Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iobitflags2.6Cargo.toml
crates.iosmallbitvec2.6Cargo.toml
crates.iosmallvec1.15Cargo.toml
crates.iopostcard1.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioxxhash-rust0.8Cargo.toml
crates.iodeterministic-hash1.0.2Cargo.toml
crates.iobevy0.19example_backend/Cargo.toml
crates.iobevy_replicon0.42.0example_backend/Cargo.toml
crates.iofastrand2.3example_backend/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 21

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobevydirect
crates.iobevy_replicondirect
crates.iobitflagsdirect
crates.iobytesdirect
crates.iodeterministic-hashdirect
crates.iofastranddirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.iopetgraphdirect
crates.iopostcarddirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.iosmallbitvecdirect
crates.iosmallvecdirect
crates.iotypeiddirect
crates.iovariadics_pleasedirect
crates.ioxxhash-rustdirect
crates.ioclapindirect
crates.iocriterionindirect
crates.iofastrand-contribindirect
crates.iopathfindingindirect
crates.ioronindirect
crates.iotest-logindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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