Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-16 00:52 UTC

stellar / wasmi

WebAssembly (Wasm) interpreter.

RustApache-2.0★ 4 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Jun 2022forkView on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

stellar/wasmi holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

StellarOrganization · verified domain
1,243 followers148 public repossince Apr 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iowasmi_clipoints to another repo — not scored2.0.025210144 days agointerpretervmwasmwebassemblyvirtualizationno-std
crates.iowasmi_corepoints to another repo — not scored2.0.01,877,5859544 days agointerpretervmwasmwebassemblyvirtualizationno-std
crates.iowasmi_wasipoints to another repo — not scored2.0.019,0849744 days agointerpretervmwasmwebassemblyvirtualizationno-std
crates.iowasmi_arenapoints to another repo — not scored0.5.0342,9596949 days agointerpreterwebassemblyvmwasmno-stdvirtualization
crates.iosoroban-wasmi29.0.0269,209102 days agointerpretervmwasmwebassemblyvirtualizationno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

47Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year4
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~163.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv29.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases163.2
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?

39Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

19Critical
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars — 4 stars
9.8/25Forks — 16 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars4
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
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_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

91Excellent
How it's scored
72.4/80Monthly downloads — 269,209 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessoroban-wasmi
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads1,734,470
monthly_downloads269,209
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 42 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled42
top_contributor_share0.544

Issue & PR responsiveness

34At Risk
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
15.5/30PR acceptance — 17/33 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs17
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs16
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.

Ownership & stewardship

97Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
22.3/25Owner reach — 1,243 followers of stellar
25/25Track record — 148 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,243
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginstellar
public_repos148
account_age_days4,558

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 10 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessoroban-wasmi
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/stellar/wasmi/wiki
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/stellar/wasmi/wiki
docs_sitehttps://github.com/stellar/wasmi/wiki
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

58Moderate
How it's scored
4.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 87 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.897
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

73Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, crates/arena/Cargo.toml, crates/cli/Cargo.toml, crates/core/Cargo.toml, crates/wasi/Cargo.toml, crates/wasmi/Cargo.toml, fuzz/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 2/120 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes90,935
source_files_sampled120
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

4GitHub stars
42contributors
4commits, 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
  • Community profile unavailable
  • crates package 'wasmi_cli' points at a different repository (https://github.com/wasmi-labs/wasmi); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • crates package 'wasmi_core' points at a different repository (https://github.com/wasmi-labs/wasmi); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • crates package 'wasmi_wasi' points at a different repository (https://github.com/wasmi-labs/wasmi); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • crates package 'wasmi_arena' points at a different repository (https://github.com/paritytech/wasmi); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 16 ⇿
0Stars
16Forks
9Releases

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.

04812161622022-062024-072026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-16 00:51 UTC

6Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
7SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow1crates/cli/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4crates/cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasmi29.0.0crates/cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasmi_wasi29.0.0crates/cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iowat1crates/cli/Cargo.toml
crates.iolibm0.2.1crates/core/Cargo.toml
crates.ionum-traits0.2.8crates/core/Cargo.toml
crates.iodowncast-rs1.2crates/core/Cargo.toml
crates.iopaste1crates/core/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasi-common2.0crates/wasi/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasi-cap-std-sync2.0crates/wasi/Cargo.toml
crates.iowiggle2.0crates/wasi/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasmi29.0.0crates/wasi/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasmparser0.100.1crates/wasmi/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasmi_core0.13crates/wasmi/Cargo.toml
crates.iowasmi_arena0.4crates/wasmi/Cargo.toml
crates.iospin0.9crates/wasmi/Cargo.toml
crates.iosmallvec1.10.0crates/wasmi/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioanyhow—direct
crates.ioclap—direct
crates.iodowncast-rs—direct
crates.iolibm—direct
crates.ionum-traits—direct
crates.iopaste—direct
crates.iosmallvec—direct
crates.iospin—direct
crates.iowasi-cap-std-sync—direct
crates.iowasi-common—direct
crates.iowasmi_arena—direct
crates.iowasmi_core—direct
crates.iowasmi_wasi—direct
crates.iowat—direct
crates.iowiggle—direct
crates.ioassert_cmd—indirect
crates.ioassert_matches—indirect
crates.iocriterion—indirect
crates.iolibfuzzer-sys—indirect
crates.iorand—indirect
crates.iosoroban-wasmi—indirect
crates.iowasm-smith—indirect
crates.iowasmparser-nostd—indirect
crates.iowast—indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with stellar/wasmi. Read them side by side →

91wasmi-labs/wasmiWebAssembly (Wasm) Interpreter - An efficient, lightweight, and deterministic WebAssembly interpreter for embedded systems and plug-in runtimes.Excellent98wasmerio/wasmer🚀 Fast, secure, lightweight containers based on WebAssemblyExceptional96boa-dev/boaBoa is an embeddable Javascript engine written in Rust.Exceptional96slint-ui/slintSlint is an open-source declarative GUI toolkit to build native user interfaces for Rust, C++, JavaScript, or Python apps.Exceptional94microsoft/regorusRegorus - A fast, lightweight Rego (OPA policy language) interpreter written in Rust.Exceptional92rhaiscript/rhaiRhai - An embedded scripting language for Rust.Excellent

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.