Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 01:38 UTC

tailcallhq / gh-workflow

Write your github workflows in rust

RustApache-2.0★ 175 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗

#github #github-actions #github-workflows #rust

tailcallhq/gh-workflow holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Security (32/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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)

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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

Ownership

TailcallOrganization

112 followers38 public repossince Aug 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	gh-workflow	0.9.0	15,123	25	52 days ago	actions generator github workflow
crates.io	gh-workflow-macros	0.9.0	15,082	18	52 days ago	actions generator github workflow
crates.io	gh-workflow-tailcall	0.9.0	1,391	19	52 days ago	actions generator github workflow

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

82Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 7 days ago
18.7/36	Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
17.3/18	Commit volume — 83 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	83
human_commit_share	0.33
days_since_last_push	7
active_weeks_last_year	27

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 58 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 52 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~35.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	58
latest_release_tag	v0.9.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	52
mean_days_between_releases	35.9

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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

48Weak

How it's scored

36.3/60	Stars — 175 stars
11.8/25	Forks — 27 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	27
stars	175
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	8
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

75Good

How it's scored

60/80	Monthly downloads — 31,596 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	gh-workflow, gh-workflow-macros, gh-workflow-tailcall
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	252,045
monthly_downloads	31,596
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

35Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	16
top_contributor_share	0.875

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate

How it's scored

31.1/42	Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed
19.9/30	PR acceptance — 141/213 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	141
open_issues	7
closed_issues	20
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.741
closed_unmerged_prs	72
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

64Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
14.8/25	Owner reach — 112 followers of tailcallhq
19.7/25	Track record — 38 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	112
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	tailcallhq
public_repos	38
account_age_days	1,479

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 52 days ago
20/20	Version history — 25 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	gh-workflow, gh-workflow-macros, gh-workflow-tailcall
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	52

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rustfmt.toml, Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml ([lints])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/gh-workflow/latest
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	github, github-actions, github-workflows, rust
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://docs.rs/gh-workflow/latest
docs_site	https://docs.rs/gh-workflow/latest
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

32At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

19Critical

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.5
malicious_dependency_cap	19
malicious_dependency_multiplier	35
security_posture_before_malicious	55

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to Security posture and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

Dependency advisories

85Excellent

Malicious package alert

Dependency reported as a malicious package

fs 0.0.1-securityindirect dependencySecurity and overall rating: Critical ceiling

Matched against the OpenSSF malicious-packages corpus via OSV. There is no corrected release of the same artifact — the remedy is removal, or moving off the compromised name. The report concerns the package as published, not the maintainers of this repository, who may have resolved it unknowingly.

How malicious dependencies are identified

How it's scored

26.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: serde_yml 0.0.13 (unknown)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
37.2/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 366 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	6
affected_packages	4
assessed_packages	111
unassessed_packages	2
affected_by_severity	high 1, moderate 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 111 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 31 of 33 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.939
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

77Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml, crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rustfmt.toml, Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml ([lints]), crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml ([lints])
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 58 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml, crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml, crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.58

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/27 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	33,402
source_files_sampled	27
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

33At Risk

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20	MCP server
0/40	Runnable examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	—
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

175GitHub stars

16contributors

83commits, last 12 months

7days since last push

58releases

1bus factor

7open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 27 ⇿

0Stars

27Forks

58Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10

5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 01:38 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 16

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	syn	`—`	crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml
crates.io	quote	`—`	crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml
crates.io	heck	`—`	crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml
crates.io	derive_setters	`—`	crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml
crates.io	gh-workflow	`0.9.0`	crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml
crates.io	heck	`—`	crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml
crates.io	async-trait	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	derive_more	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	derive_setters	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	indexmap	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	merge	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_json	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_yml	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	strum_macros	`—`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml
crates.io	gh-workflow-macros	`0.9.0`	crates/gh-workflow/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 113

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 96 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	async-trait	`0.1.92`	direct
crates.io	derive_more	`2.1.1`	direct
crates.io	derive_setters	`0.1.9`	direct
crates.io	gh-workflow	`—`	direct
crates.io	gh-workflow-macros	`—`	direct
crates.io	heck	`0.5.0`	direct
crates.io	indexmap	`2.14.2`	direct
crates.io	merge	`0.2.0`	direct
crates.io	quote	`1.0.37`	direct
crates.io	quote	`1.0.47`	direct
crates.io	serde	`1.0.229`	direct
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.151`	direct
crates.io	serde_yml	`0.0.13`	direct
crates.io	strum_macros	`0.28.0`	direct
crates.io	syn	`2.0.119`	direct
crates.io	syn	`2.0.89`	direct
crates.io	syn	`3.0.5`	direct
crates.io	autocfg	`1.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.10.0`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	console	`0.16.3`	indirect
crates.io	darling	`0.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	darling_core	`0.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	darling_macro	`0.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	derive_more-impl	`2.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	diff	`0.1.13`	indirect
crates.io	encode_unicode	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	errno	`0.3.14`	indirect
crates.io	fastrand	`2.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	fnv	`1.0.7`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.3.4`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.17.0`	indirect
crates.io	ident_case	`1.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	insta	`1.48.0`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.15`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.177`	indirect
crates.io	linux-raw-sys	`0.11.0`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.6`	indirect
crates.io	merge_derive	`0.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	noyalib	`0.0.5`	indirect
crates.io	num-traits	`0.2.19`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	pretty_assertions	`1.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro-error-attr2	`2.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro-error2	`2.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.103`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.92`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`5.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	rustc-hash	`2.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	rustc_version	`0.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	rustix	`1.1.2`	indirect
crates.io	semver	`1.0.27`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.229`	indirect
crates.io	similar	`2.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	smallvec	`1.15.2`	indirect
crates.io	strsim	`0.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	tempfile	`3.23.0`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.14`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.22`	indirect
crates.io	wasip2	`1.0.1+wasi-0.2.4`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen	`0.46.0`	indirect
crates.io	yansi	`1.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	@glideapps/ts-necessities	`2.2.3`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`22.7.5`	indirect
npm	abort-controller	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	base64-js	`1.5.1`	indirect
npm	biskviit	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	browser-or-node	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	buffer	`6.0.3`	indirect
npm	collection-utils	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	cross-fetch	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	data-uri-to-buffer	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	encoding	`0.1.12`	indirect
npm	event-target-shim	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	events	`3.3.0`	indirect
npm	fetch	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	fetch-blob	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	formdata-polyfill	`4.0.10`	indirect
npm	fs	`0.0.1-security`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.4.24`	indirect
npm	ieee754	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	is-url	`1.2.4`	indirect
npm	js-base64	`3.7.7`	indirect
npm	lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect
npm	node-domexception	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	node-fetch	`2.7.0`	indirect
npm	node-fetch	`3.3.2`	indirect
npm	pako	`0.2.9`	indirect
npm	pako	`1.0.11`	indirect
npm	pluralize	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	process	`0.11.10`	indirect
npm	psl	`1.9.0`	indirect
npm	quicktype-core	`23.0.170`	indirect
npm	readable-stream	`4.5.2`	indirect
npm	safe-buffer	`5.2.1`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	string_decoder	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	tiny-inflate	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	tr46	`0.0.3`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`6.19.8`	indirect
npm	unicode-properties	`1.4.1`	indirect
npm	unicode-trie	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	urijs	`1.19.11`	indirect
npm	web-streams-polyfill	`3.3.3`	indirect
npm	webidl-conversions	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	whatwg-url	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	wordwrap	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	yaml	`2.5.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 111 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect	high	3	`4.18.0`
yaml	`2.5.1`	indirect	moderate	1	`2.8.3`
serde_yml	`0.0.13`	direct	unknown	1	—
proc-macro-error2	`2.0.1`	indirect	unknown	1	—

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records