Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 20:11 UTC

trailofbits / rfc3161-client

An Opinionated Python RFC3161 Client

Rust · PythonApache-2.0★ 7 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Sep 2024View on GitHub ↗

trailofbits/rfc3161-client holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Trail of BitsOrganization · verified domain

3,109 followers290 public repossince Sep 2012

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
PyPI	rfc3161-client	1.0.8	918,092	15	26 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

94Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
30.5/36	Commit cadence — 44/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 109 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	109
human_commit_share	0.19
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	44

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 26 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~66.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	17
latest_release_tag	v1.0.8
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	26
mean_days_between_releases	66.1

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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

19Critical

How it's scored

12.6/60	Stars — 7 stars
4/25	Forks — 4 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	4
stars	7
watchers	4
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	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

99Exceptional

How it's scored

79.5/80	Monthly downloads — 918,092 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	rfc3161-client
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	918,092
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?

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

35Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
9.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	7
top_contributor_share	0.713

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent

How it's scored

37.6/42	Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
24.8/30	PR acceptance — 234/283 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	234
open_issues	2
closed_issues	17
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	5
prs_decided_30d	5
issue_closed_ratio	0.895
closed_unmerged_prs	49
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

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 3,109 followers of trailofbits
25/25	Track record — 290 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	3,109
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	trailofbits
public_repos	290
account_age_days	5,096

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 26 days ago
20/20	Version history — 15 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	rfc3161-client
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	26

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 — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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://trailofbits.github.io/rfc3161-client/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 2 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	rfc3161, timestamp-protocol
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://trailofbits.github.io/rfc3161-client/
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?

86Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

82Excellent

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 19 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 — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	8.2

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	3
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:rfc3161-client@1.0.8 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 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.

65Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — src/rfc3161_client/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 7 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 81 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	src/rfc3161_client/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0.07
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, rust/Cargo.toml, rust/tsp-asn1/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.81

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/20 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	29,982
source_files_sampled	20
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

7GitHub stars

7contributors

109commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

17releases

1bus factor

2open issues

crates.io, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch crates package 'rfc3161-client' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿

0Stars

4Forks

1Releases

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 0Patch 1

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.2 / 10

8.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 20:11 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 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
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 19 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	30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3	Vulnerabilities	7 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 10

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	cryptography	`>=43`	pyproject.toml
crates.io	tsp-asn1	`—`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	pyo3	`0.29.0`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	asn1	`—`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	self_cell	`1`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	hex	`—`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	sha2	`0.11.0`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	rand	`0.10.0`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	cryptography-x509	`—`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	openssl	`0.10.80`	rust/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 110

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 96 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	asn1	`0.24.1`	direct
crates.io	cryptography-x509	`0.49.0`	direct
crates.io	hex	`0.4.3`	direct
crates.io	openssl	`—`	direct
crates.io	openssl	`0.10.81`	direct
crates.io	pyo3	`—`	direct
crates.io	pyo3	`0.29.1`	direct
crates.io	rand	`—`	direct
crates.io	rand	`0.10.2`	direct
crates.io	self_cell	`—`	direct
crates.io	self_cell	`1.3.0`	direct
crates.io	sha2	`—`	direct
crates.io	sha2	`0.11.0`	direct
PyPI	cryptography	`46.0.7`	direct
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.102`	indirect
crates.io	asn1_derive	`0.24.1`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	block-buffer	`0.12.0`	indirect
crates.io	cc	`1.2.60`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	chacha20	`0.10.0`	indirect
crates.io	const-oid	`0.10.2`	indirect
crates.io	cpufeatures	`0.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	crypto-common	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	digest	`0.11.2`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	find-msvc-tools	`0.1.9`	indirect
crates.io	foldhash	`0.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	foreign-types	`0.3.2`	indirect
crates.io	foreign-types-shared	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.15.5`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.17.0`	indirect
crates.io	heck	`0.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	hybrid-array	`0.4.10`	indirect
crates.io	id-arena	`2.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`2.14.0`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	leb128fmt	`0.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.185`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.29`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.4`	indirect
crates.io	openssl-macros	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	openssl-src	`300.6.0+3.6.2`	indirect
crates.io	openssl-sys	`0.9.117`	indirect
crates.io	pkg-config	`0.3.33`	indirect
crates.io	portable-atomic	`1.13.1`	indirect
crates.io	prettyplease	`0.2.37`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.106`	indirect
crates.io	pyo3-build-config	`—`	indirect
crates.io	pyo3-build-config	`0.29.1`	indirect
crates.io	pyo3-ffi	`0.29.1`	indirect
crates.io	pyo3-macros	`0.29.1`	indirect
crates.io	pyo3-macros-backend	`0.29.1`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.45`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`6.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	rand_core	`0.10.1`	indirect
crates.io	semver	`1.0.28`	indirect
crates.io	serde	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.149`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`1.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.117`	indirect
crates.io	target-lexicon	`0.13.5`	indirect
crates.io	typenum	`1.19.0`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-xid	`0.2.6`	indirect
crates.io	vcpkg	`0.2.15`	indirect
crates.io	wasip2	`1.0.2+wasi-0.2.9`	indirect
crates.io	wasip3	`0.4.0+wasi-0.3.0-rc-2026-01-06`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-encoder	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-metadata	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	wasmparser	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-core	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-rust	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-rust-macro	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-component	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-parser	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.21`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`25.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.13.2`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	interrogate	`1.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	maturin	`1.14.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pretend	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	py	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3161-client	`1.0.8`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.1`	indirect
PyPI	tabulate	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	ty	`0.0.65`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:rfc3161-client@1.0.8 pulls in 3 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records