Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 05:10 UTC

trifectatechfoundation / sudo-rs

A memory safe implementation of sudo and su.

RustApache-2.0★ 4,461 stars⑂ 179 forkssince Dec 2022View on GitHub ↗

trifectatechfoundation/sudo-rs holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (66/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

249 followers17 public repossince Jun 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iosudo-rs0.2.15962119 days agocommand-line-interface

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 18 days ago
31.8/36Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 604 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year604
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year46
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 19 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~53.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv0.2.15
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release19
mean_days_between_releases53.5

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
59.2/60Stars — 4,461 stars
18.8/25Forks — 179 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 33 watchers
Inputs used
forks179
stars4,461
watchers33
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
26.5/80Monthly downloads — 96 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessudo-rs
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads17,272
monthly_downloads96
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?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 83 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled83
top_contributor_share0.369
How it's scored
37.5/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 954/1,032 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs954
open_issues68
closed_issues567
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d8
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio0.893
closed_unmerged_prs78
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.2/25Owner reach — 249 followers of trifectatechfoundation
13.7/25Track record — 17 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers249
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logintrifectatechfoundation
public_repos17
account_age_days831

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 19 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessudo-rs
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), clippy.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/sudo-rs
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/sudo-rs
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

85Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

81Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate8.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:sudo-rs@0.2.15 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.8/40Legible commit history — 40 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.408
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — Cargo.toml ([lints]), clippy.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, test-framework/Cargo.toml, test-framework/e2e-tests/Cargo.toml, test-framework/sudo-compliance-tests/Cargo.toml, test-framework/sudo-test/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/209 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes42,717
source_files_sampled209
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4,461GitHub stars
83contributors
604commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
16releases
2bus factor
68open 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 ★ / 179 ⇿
0Stars
179Forks
16Releases

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.

04080120160200178202023-012024-112026-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 15

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.1 / 10
8.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 05:09 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
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
7Code-ReviewFound 10/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iolibc0.2.176Cargo.toml
crates.ioglob0.3.0Cargo.toml
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioglob0.3.4direct
crates.iolibc0.2.186direct
crates.iolibc0.2.189direct
crates.ioaho-corasick1.1.3indirect
crates.iobitflags2.9.1indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.0indirect
crates.ioconsole0.16.3indirect
crates.iodiff0.1.13indirect
crates.ioencode_unicode1.0.0indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.iofastrand2.3.0indirect
crates.iofiletime0.2.29indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.3.3indirect
crates.ioinsta—indirect
crates.ioinsta1.47.0indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.iomemchr2.7.4indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.3indirect
crates.iopretty_assertions—indirect
crates.iopretty_assertions1.4.1indirect
crates.ior-efi5.2.0indirect
crates.ioregex1.11.1indirect
crates.ioregex-automata0.4.9indirect
crates.ioregex-syntax0.8.5indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.4indirect
crates.iosimilar2.7.0indirect
crates.iotar—indirect
crates.iotar0.4.46indirect
crates.iotempfile—indirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0indirect
crates.iowasi0.14.2+wasi-0.2.4indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowit-bindgen-rt0.39.0indirect
crates.ioyansi1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:sudo-rs@0.2.15 pulls in 2 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.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io.