Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 14:48 UTC

tuannm99 / novasql

recreating SQL database

RustNo license detected★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Jan 2025View on GitHub ↗

tuannm99/novasql holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (70/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

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.

39
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Nguyen Minh TuanPersonal account
2 followers29 public repossince Mar 2021

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

54Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 16 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
14.4/18Commit volume — 39 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year39
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push16
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 289 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release289
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

36Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
26.7/30PR acceptance — 8/9 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs8
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of tuannm99
21.9/25Track record — 29 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintuannm99
public_repos29
account_age_days2,039
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssql, database, dbms
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

37Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages92
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 92 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

70Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.9/40Legible commit history — 62 of 85 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.729
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 85
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/38 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes26,842
source_files_sampled38
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
39commits, last 12 months
16days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.1 / 10
2.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 14:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iobase640.23.1Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.45Cargo.toml
crates.iocrc32fast1.5.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioctrlc3.5.2Cargo.toml
crates.iorustyline18.0.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.229Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0.151Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_repr0.1.21Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_yaml0.9.34Cargo.toml
crates.iotempfile3.27.0Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0.21Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing0.1.44Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3.23Cargo.toml
All dependencies 92

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 79 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobase640.23.1direct
crates.iochrono0.4.45direct
crates.iocrc32fast1.5.2direct
crates.ioctrlc3.5.2direct
crates.iorustyline18.0.1direct
crates.ioserde1.0.229direct
crates.ioserde_json1.0.151direct
crates.ioserde_repr0.1.21direct
crates.ioserde_yaml0.9.34+deprecateddirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0direct
crates.iothiserror2.0.21direct
crates.iotracing0.1.44direct
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3.23direct
crates.ioandroid_system_properties0.1.6indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.iobitflags2.13.2indirect
crates.ioblock20.6.2indirect
crates.iobumpalo3.20.3indirect
crates.iocc1.6.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.5indirect
crates.iocfg_aliases0.2.2indirect
crates.ioclipboard-win5.4.1indirect
crates.iocore-foundation-sys0.8.7indirect
crates.iodispatch20.3.1indirect
crates.ioendian-type0.2.0indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.ioerror-code3.4.0indirect
crates.iofastrand2.5.0indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.14indirect
crates.iofutures-core0.3.34indirect
crates.iofutures-task0.3.34indirect
crates.iofutures-util0.3.34indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.3indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.17.1indirect
crates.iohome0.5.12indirect
crates.ioiana-time-zone0.1.65indirect
crates.ioiana-time-zone-haiku0.1.2indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.14.2indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.18indirect
crates.iojs-sys0.3.106indirect
crates.iolazy_static1.5.1indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.190indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.iolog0.4.34indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.3indirect
crates.ionibble_vec0.1.0indirect
crates.ionix0.31.3indirect
crates.ionu-ansi-term0.50.3indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioobjc20.6.4indirect
crates.ioobjc2-encode4.1.0indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.iopin-project-lite0.2.17indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.ioradix_trie0.3.0indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.5indirect
crates.iorustversion1.0.23indirect
crates.ioryu1.0.23indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.229indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.229indirect
crates.iosharded-slab0.1.7indirect
crates.ioshlex2.0.1indirect
crates.ioslab0.4.12indirect
crates.iosmallvec1.16.2indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iosyn3.0.6indirect
crates.iothiserror-impl2.0.21indirect
crates.iothread_local1.1.10indirect
crates.iotracing-attributes0.1.31indirect
crates.iotracing-core0.1.36indirect
crates.iotracing-log0.2.0indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.26indirect
crates.iounicode-segmentation1.13.3indirect
crates.iounicode-width0.2.2indirect
crates.iounsafe-libyaml0.2.11indirect
crates.ioutf8parse0.2.2indirect
crates.iovaluable0.1.1indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.129indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro0.2.129indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro-support0.2.129indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-shared0.2.129indirect
crates.iowindows-core0.62.2indirect
crates.iowindows-implement0.60.2indirect
crates.iowindows-interface0.59.3indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-result0.4.1indirect
crates.iowindows-strings0.5.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.23indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 92 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
unsafe-libyaml0.2.11indirectunknown1—

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.