Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-26 15:47 UTC

sora-xor / ethabi

Designing a Better World Through Decentralized Technologies

RustGPL-3.0★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jul 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

sora-xor/ethabi holds a health index of 24 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (54/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 1026 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

24
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

24
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 34 is calibrated to 28 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SORAOrganization
132 followers95 public repossince May 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioethabi-cli16.0.048181743 days agosolidityethcliethereumabi
crates.ioethabi-derive16.0.02,510281743 days agosolidityethethereumderiveabi
crates.ioethabi18.0.0584,580441410 days agoabiethsolidityethereum
crates.ioethabi-contract16.0.02,692151743 days agosolidityethethereumderiveabi

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 1,026 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1,026
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

40Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 8 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,006 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~72.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv6.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release3,006
mean_days_between_releases72.7
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?

27At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

6Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
6.4/15Watchers — 15 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
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?

43Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 70% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.702

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
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_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

70Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.3/25Owner reach — 132 followers of sora-xor
25/25Track record — 95 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers132
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginsora-xor
public_repos95
account_age_days2,689

Package maintenance

69Good
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 4 package(s) on crates
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,410 days ago
20/20Version history — 44 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesethabi-cli, ethabi-derive, ethabi, ethabi-contract
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,410

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

49Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

38Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

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

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated11
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive7
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

19Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.7/40Legible commit history — 35 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.35
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, cli/Cargo.toml, contract/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
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 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, cli/Cargo.toml, contract/Cargo.toml, derive/Cargo.toml, ethabi/Cargo.toml, tests/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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 — 0/29 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes23,409
source_files_sampled29
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
14contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,026days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-26 15:47 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iorustc-hex1.0cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_derive1.0cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iodocopt0.8.1cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioethabi6.0cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioerror-chain0.12.0cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioethabi6.0derive/Cargo.toml
crates.ioheck0.3derive/Cargo.toml
crates.iosyn0.13derive/Cargo.toml
crates.ioquote0.5.1derive/Cargo.toml
crates.iorustc-hex1.0ethabi/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0ethabi/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0ethabi/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_derive1.0ethabi/Cargo.toml
crates.iotiny-keccak1.3ethabi/Cargo.toml
crates.ioerror-chain0.12ethabi/Cargo.toml
crates.ioethereum-types0.3ethabi/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 sora-xor/ethabi. Read them side by side →

96wevm/wagmiReactive primitives for Ethereum appsExceptional96foundry-rs/foundryFoundry is a blazing fast, portable and modular toolkit for Ethereum application development written in Rust.Exceptional96wevm/viemTypeScript Interface for EthereumExceptional96ccxt/ccxtA unified trading API with more than 100 crypto exchanges and prediction markets in JavaScript / TypeScript / Python / C# / PHP / Go / Java / RustExceptional94paradigmxyz/solarBlazingly fast, modular and contributor friendly Solidity compiler, written in RustExceptional98OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contractsOpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development.Exceptional

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.