Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-06 02:29 UTC

ubolonton / emacs-module-rs

Rust binding and tools for Emacs's dynamic modules

RustBSD-3-Clause★ 375 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Dec 2017View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#rust #emacs #binding #ffi #emacs-modules

ubolonton/emacs-module-rs holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on Security (42/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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

Ownership

Tuấn-Anh NguyễnPersonal account

239 followers66 public repossince Feb 2010

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	emacs	0.22.0	3,620	34	0 days ago	emacs emacs-module ffi api-bindings
crates.io	xtaskpoints to another repo — not scored	0.1.4	322	5	97 days ago	automation codesign macos release xtask command-line-utilities
crates.io	emacs-rs-module	0.22.0	43	20	0 days ago	—
crates.io	test-module	0.4.0	1	2	874 days ago	—
crates.io	emacs-macros	0.22.0	3,576	12	0 days ago	emacs emacs-module
crates.io	emacs_module	0.22.0	3,621	12	0 days ago	—

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9/36	Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 116 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	116
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	13

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 23 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~233.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	23
latest_release_tag	0.22.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	233.1

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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

59Moderate

How it's scored

41.7/60	Stars — 375 stars
11.8/25	Forks — 27 forks
5.8/15	Watchers — 12 watchers

Inputs used

forks	27
stars	375
watchers	12
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 (BSD-3-Clause)
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	2
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

59Moderate

How it's scored

47.5/80	Monthly downloads — 3,620 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	emacs
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	114,585
monthly_downloads	3,620
unverified_packages_excluded	emacs-rs-module, test-module, emacs-macros, emacs_module

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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

28At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.905

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good

How it's scored

28/42	Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
25.7/30	PR acceptance — 18/21 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	18
open_issues	15
closed_issues	30
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.667
closed_unmerged_prs	3
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

65Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.1/25	Owner reach — 239 followers of ubolonton
25/25	Track record — 66 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	239
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	ubolonton
public_repos	66
account_age_days	6,085

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 5 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 34 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	emacs, emacs-rs-module, test-module, emacs-macros, emacs_module
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rustfmt.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://ubolonton.github.io/emacs-module-rs/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	rust, emacs, binding, ffi, emacs-modules
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://ubolonton.github.io/emacs-module-rs/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no 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 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	14
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	4
scorecard_aggregate	3.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

85Excellent

How it's scored

26.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: anyhow 1.0.102 (unknown)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
37.2/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 102 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	76
unassessed_packages	10
affected_by_severity	unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 76 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .claude/CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 88 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.88
agent_instruction_files	.claude/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	4,692

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

77Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, emacs-macros/Cargo.toml, emacs-module/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rustfmt.toml
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 45 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.45
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, emacs-macros/Cargo.toml, emacs-module/Cargo.toml, rs-module/Cargo.toml, test-module-28/Cargo.toml, test-module/Cargo.toml, xtask/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/47 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	46,075
source_files_sampled	47
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

375GitHub stars

8contributors

116commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

23releases

1bus factor

15open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
crates package 'xtask' points at a different repository (https://github.com/arcboxlabs/xtask); excluded from ecosystem scoring
Could not fetch crates package 'test-module-28' from its registry
deps.dev does not index crates:emacs@0.22.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 27 ⇿

0Stars

27Forks

22Releases

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 12Patch 10

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10

3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-06 02:29 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0	Dangerous-Workflow	dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 17

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	ctor	`0.6`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	emacs_module	`0.22.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	emacs-macros	`0.22.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1`	emacs-macros/Cargo.toml
crates.io	syn	`2`	emacs-macros/Cargo.toml
crates.io	quote	`1`	emacs-macros/Cargo.toml
crates.io	darling	`0.21`	emacs-macros/Cargo.toml
crates.io	bindgen	`0.72.1`	emacs-module/Cargo.toml
crates.io	libloading	`0.9.0`	rs-module/Cargo.toml
crates.io	emacs	`0.22.0`	rs-module/Cargo.toml
crates.io	emacs	`—`	test-module-28/Cargo.toml
crates.io	emacs	`—`	test-module/Cargo.toml
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0`	xtask/Cargo.toml
crates.io	clap	`4`	xtask/Cargo.toml
crates.io	xshell	`0.2`	xtask/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 86

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 28 direct and 58 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	anyhow	`—`	direct
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.102`	direct
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.104`	direct
crates.io	bindgen	`—`	direct
crates.io	bindgen	`0.72.1`	direct
crates.io	clap	`—`	direct
crates.io	clap	`4.6.0`	direct
crates.io	ctor	`0.6.3`	direct
crates.io	darling	`—`	direct
crates.io	darling	`0.21.3`	direct
crates.io	emacs	`—`	direct
crates.io	libloading	`—`	direct
crates.io	libloading	`0.8.9`	direct
crates.io	libloading	`0.9.0`	direct
crates.io	proc-macro2	`—`	direct
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.106`	direct
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.107`	direct
crates.io	quote	`—`	direct
crates.io	quote	`1.0.45`	direct
crates.io	quote	`1.0.47`	direct
crates.io	syn	`—`	direct
crates.io	syn	`2.0.117`	direct
crates.io	syn	`2.0.119`	direct
crates.io	syn	`3.0.4`	direct
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0.18`	direct
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0.20`	direct
crates.io	xshell	`—`	direct
crates.io	xshell	`0.2.7`	direct
crates.io	aho-corasick	`1.1.4`	indirect
crates.io	aho-corasick	`1.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	anstream	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle	`1.0.14`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle-parse	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle-query	`1.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	anstyle-wincon	`3.0.11`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.11.0`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.13.1`	indirect
crates.io	cexpr	`0.6.0`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	clang-sys	`1.8.1`	indirect
crates.io	clang-sys	`1.9.1`	indirect
crates.io	clap_builder	`4.6.0`	indirect
crates.io	clap_derive	`4.6.0`	indirect
crates.io	clap_lex	`1.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	colorchoice	`1.0.5`	indirect
crates.io	ctor-proc-macro	`0.0.7`	indirect
crates.io	darling_core	`0.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	darling_macro	`0.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	dtor	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	dtor-proc-macro	`0.0.6`	indirect
crates.io	either	`1.15.0`	indirect
crates.io	either	`1.18.0`	indirect
crates.io	fnv	`1.0.7`	indirect
crates.io	glob	`0.3.3`	indirect
crates.io	glob	`0.3.4`	indirect
crates.io	heck	`0.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	ident_case	`1.0.1`	indirect
crates.io	is_terminal_polyfill	`1.70.2`	indirect
crates.io	itertools	`0.13.0`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.183`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.189`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.29`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.34`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.3`	indirect
crates.io	minimal-lexical	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	nom	`7.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell_polyfill	`1.70.2`	indirect
crates.io	prettyplease	`0.2.37`	indirect
crates.io	regex	`1.12.3`	indirect
crates.io	regex	`1.13.1`	indirect
crates.io	regex-automata	`0.4.14`	indirect
crates.io	regex-automata	`0.4.18`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.8.10`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.8.11`	indirect
crates.io	rustc-hash	`2.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	rustc-hash	`2.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	shlex	`1.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	strsim	`0.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`2.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`2.0.20`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	utf8parse	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	xshell-macros	`0.2.7`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 76 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
anyhow	`1.0.102`	direct	unknown	1	`1.0.103`

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 — crates.io.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records