# timothymiller/cloudflare-ddns — health index 75/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository timothymiller/cloudflare-ddns by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good 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/timothymiller/cloudflare-ddns
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/timothymiller/cloudflare-ddns
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/timothymiller/cloudflare-ddns/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/t/timothymiller/cloudflare-ddns.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-12
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 81/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 77/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 57/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 55/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 51/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | 🦀 Rust based dynamic DNS (DDNS) updater for Cloudflare |
| Classification | network-service |
| Homepage | https://timknowsbest.com/free-dynamic-dns |
| Primary language | Rust |
| License | GPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 4,370 |
| Forks | 421 |
| Created | 2019-09-29 |
| Last push | 2026-07-31 |
| Latest release | v2.2.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 92 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | dynamic-dns, self-hosted, raspberry-pi, ddns-client, docker-image, ipv6, cloudflare-ddns, arm64, amd64, armv7, rust |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | cloudflare-ddns | 0.3.0 | 7 |

## Vitality — 81/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 68/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 11 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 11.8 / 36 | 17/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 17.7 / 18 | 92 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 15 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 22 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~13.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 30 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 77/100 (Good)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 59.1 / 60 | 4,370 stars |
| Forks | partial | 21.9 / 25 | 421 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 6.8 / 15 | 18 watchers |

### Community health — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (GPL-3.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 57/100 (Moderate)

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) — 38/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 5.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 76% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 25 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 41.3 / 42 | 98% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 10.5 / 30 | 50/143 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 7.5 / 15 | Found 1/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 64/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 16.6 / 25 | 200 followers of timothymiller |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 91 public repos, account ~7 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 55/100 (Moderate)

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

### Engineering practices — 42/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 2 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 18 / 20 | 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |

### 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://timknowsbest.com/free-dynamic-dns |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 11 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 61/100 (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 — 65/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | Found 1/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 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 3 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 | partial | 3.5 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 45/100 (Weak)

Matched the crates:cloudflare-ddns@0.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 212 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 26.6 / 35 | 1 affected: structopt 0.3.26 (unknown) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 2.3 / 25 | 14 affected: failure 0.1.8 (critical 9.8), hyper 0.13.10 (critical 9.1), quick-xml 0.30.0 (high 7.5), +11 more |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 16.3 / 40 | 14 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2463 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 — 51/100 (Moderate)

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 — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 64 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 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 | partial | 8 / 10 | 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 30.6 / 55 | 4/9 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- crates package 'cloudflare-ddns' points at a different repository (https://github.com/zbrox/cloudflare-ddns); excluded from ecosystem scoring

## 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