Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 04:41 UTC

typst / codex

A human-friendly notation for Unicode symbols.

RustApache-2.0★ 53 stars⑂ 21 forkssince Nov 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

typst/codex holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (58/100). It was last updated 49 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

TypstOrganization · verified domain
3,533 followers35 public repossince Jun 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iocodex0.3.0346,5085100 days agosymbolsunicodeencodingtext-processing

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

54Moderate
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 49 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18Commit volume — 44 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year44
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push49
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 100 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~161.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv0.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release100
mean_days_between_releases161.7
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?

65Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

44Weak
How it's scored
27.8/60Stars — 53 stars
10.8/25Forks — 21 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks21
stars53
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

92Excellent
How it's scored
73.9/80Monthly downloads — 346,508 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescodex
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads2,360,139
monthly_downloads346,508
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)

59Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.348

Issue & PR responsiveness

64Moderate
How it's scored
15.6/42Issue resolution — 37% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance — 105/120 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs105
open_issues27
closed_issues16
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.372
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

98Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,533 followers of typst
23.3/25Track record — 35 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,533
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logintypst
public_repos35
account_age_days2,266

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 100 days ago
20/20Version history — 5 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescodex
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish100

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/codex
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/codex
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

62Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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_packages21
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:codex@0.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 21 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 93 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.93
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

55Moderate
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes53,245
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

53GitHub stars
16contributors
44commits, last 12 months
49days since last push
4releases
2bus factor
27open 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 ★ / 21 ⇿
0Stars
21Forks
4Releases

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.

048121620242112024-112025-092026-08
Major 0Minor 3Patch 1

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 04:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained8 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iochinese-number0.7.7Cargo.toml
All dependencies 55

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iochinese-number0.7.8direct
crates.ioadler22.0.1indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.0indirect
crates.iobase640.22.1indirect
crates.iobytes1.11.1indirect
crates.iocc1.2.31indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.1indirect
crates.iochinese-variant1.1.5indirect
crates.iocrc32fast1.5.0indirect
crates.ioenum-ordinalize4.3.2indirect
crates.ioenum-ordinalize-derive4.3.2indirect
crates.ioflate21.1.2indirect
crates.iofnv1.0.7indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.2.16indirect
crates.iohttp1.3.1indirect
crates.iohttparse1.10.1indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.15indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.174indirect
crates.iolog0.4.27indirect
crates.iominiz_oxide0.8.9indirect
crates.ionum-bigint0.4.6indirect
crates.ionum-integer0.1.46indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.3indirect
crates.iopercent-encoding2.3.1indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.44indirect
crates.ioring0.17.14indirect
crates.iorustls0.23.31indirect
crates.iorustls-pemfile2.2.0indirect
crates.iorustls-pki-types1.12.0indirect
crates.iorustls-webpki0.103.13indirect
crates.ioshlex1.3.0indirect
crates.iosiphasher1.0.2indirect
crates.iosubtle2.6.1indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.117indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iountrusted0.9.0indirect
crates.ioureq3.0.12indirect
crates.ioureq-proto0.4.2indirect
crates.ioutf-80.7.6indirect
crates.iowasi0.11.1+wasi-snapshot-preview1indirect
crates.iowebpki-roots0.26.11indirect
crates.iowebpki-roots1.0.2indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.52.0indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iozeroize1.8.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:codex@0.3.0 pulls in 21 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with typst/codex. Read them side by side →

92github/rust-gemsA collection of rust algorithms and data structuresExcellent83hsivonen/encoding_rsA Gecko-oriented implementation of the Encoding Standard in RustExcellent94unicode-org/icu4xSolving i18n for client-side and resource-constrained environments.Exceptional89sebastian-software/ferroniOniguruma's regex engine in pure Rust: full Oniguruma syntax, a vscode-oniguruma-compatible TextMate scanner, no C toolchainExcellent86tafia/calamineA pure Rust Excel/OpenDocument SpreadSheets file reader: rust on metal sheetsExcellent86bourumir-wyngs/granit-parserYAML 1.2 compliant parser in pure Rust with strict compliance, comment and style support, no-std support, and spans for parser events. It accepts many real-world YAML documents from the YAML 1.1 era where the syntax overlaps with YAML 1.2Excellent

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.