Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 21:34 UTC

tokio-rs / bytes

Utilities for working with bytes

RustMIT★ 2,241 stars⑂ 348 forkssince Jan 2015View on GitHub ↗

tokio-rs/bytes holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (53/100). It was last updated 19 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TokioOrganization
3,017 followers48 public repossince Jul 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iobytes1.12.170,425,0455927 days agobuffersiozero-copydata-structuresnetwork-programming

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 19 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18Commit volume23 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year23
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push19
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases29 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 27 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~78.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tagv1.12.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release27
mean_days_between_releases78.4
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?

76Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54.3/60Stars2,241 stars
21.2/25Forks348 forks
8.5/15Watchers35 watchers
Inputs used
forks348
stars2,241
watchers35
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
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
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads70,425,045 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbytes
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads910,048,023
monthly_downloads70,425,045
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?

87Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.38
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution83% of issues closed
23.3/30PR acceptance386/497 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs386
open_issues54
closed_issues256
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs111
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach3,017 followers of tokio-rs
24.3/25Track record48 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,017
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logintokio-rs
public_repos48
account_age_days3,686
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 27 days ago
20/20Version history59 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbytes
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish27

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

59Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests23 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/bytes
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/bytes
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests23 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 7 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
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
23/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: tracing-subscriber 0.3.19 (low)
39/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 340 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages31
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitylow 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the crates:bytes@1.12.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 31 packages. 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.95
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.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
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
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
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
51.8/55Manageable file sizes2/34 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes86,641
source_files_sampled34
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

2,241GitHub stars
100contributors
23commits, last 12 months
19days since last push
29releases
3bus factor
54open 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 ★ / 348 ⇿
0Stars
348Forks
29Releases

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.

012525037533562015-022020-102026-07
Major 1Minor 14Patch 14

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 21:33 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
7CI-Tests23 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained6 commit(s) and 7 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
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioserde1.0.60Cargo.toml
crates.ioextra-platforms1.3Cargo.toml
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioloomindirect
crates.ioportable-atomicindirect
crates.ioserde_testindirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing crates:bytes@1.12.1 pulls in 31 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
tracing-subscriber0.3.19indirectlow20.3.20

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.

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.