Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 01:37 UTC

wasmCloud / wascc-host

Library for hosting actors and capability providers in a host process

RustApache-2.0★ 197 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Dec 2019archivedView on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#webassembly #webassembly-runtime #wapc #cloud-native

wasmCloud/wascc-host holds a health index of 16 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (61/100) and lowest on Vitality (22/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

overall / 100

Critical

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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

wasmcloudOrganization · verified domain

597 followers78 public repossince Jun 2019

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	Tags
crates.io	wascc-hostpoints to another repo — not scored	0.14.0	645	29	2131 days ago	webassembly wasm wasi wascc wapc api-bindings command-line-utilities

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

22At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

archived on GitHub by its maintainersOverall rating: Critical ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 2,116 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	0.96
days_since_last_push	2,116
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

54Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 10 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 2,131 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~27.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	10
latest_release_tag	v0.14.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	2,131
mean_days_between_releases	27.3

Community & Adoption

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

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

46Weak

How it's scored

37.2/60	Stars — 197 stars
9.3/25	Forks — 14 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	14
stars	197
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

57Moderate

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
6.3/6.3	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	yes

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)

26At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
12.2/13.5	Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	9
top_contributor_share	0.901

Issue & PR responsiveness

69Good

How it's scored

28.4/42	Issue resolution — 68% of issues closed
28.5/30	PR acceptance — 38/40 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	38
open_issues	22
closed_issues	46
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.676
closed_unmerged_prs	2
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

95Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
20/25	Owner reach — 597 followers of wasmCloud
25/25	Track record — 78 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	597
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	wasmCloud
public_repos	78
account_age_days	2,620

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

53Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	webassembly, webassembly-runtime, wapc, cloud-native
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
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?

28At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

32At Risk

How it's scored

0/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
0/7.5	Maintained — project is archived
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	3.2

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

Dependency advisories

14Critical

How it's scored

5.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 6 affected: hyper 0.13.10 (critical 9.1), crossbeam-utils 0.7.2 (high 8.1), ring 0.16.20 (high 7.5), +3 more
1.1/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 31 affected: raw-cpuid 7.0.4 (critical 9.8), wasmtime 0.19.0 (critical 9.9), cranelift-codegen 0.66.0 (high 8.8), +28 more
7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 37 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2,304 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	135
affected_packages	37
assessed_packages	441
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 3, high 10, moderate 7, low 4, unknown 13
direct_affected_packages	6

Matched the crates:wascc-host@0.14.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 441 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

18Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.8/40	Legible commit history — 32 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.333
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.04

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/38 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	39,255
source_files_sampled	38
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

197GitHub stars

9contributors

0commits, last 12 months

2,116days since last push

10releases

1bus factor

22open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
crates package 'wascc-host' points at a different repository (https://github.com/wascc/wascc-host); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿

0Stars

14Forks

10Releases

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 8Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10

3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-23 01:37 UTC

0	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
0	Maintained	project is archived
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 29

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	libloading	`0.6.3`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	crossbeam-channel	`0.4.3`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	crossbeam	`0.7.3`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	crossbeam-utils	`^0.7.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	prometheus	`0.9`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	hyper	`0.13`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	tokio	`0.2`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	wapc	`0.10.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	wascc-codec	`0.8`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	wascap	`0.5.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4.11`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	rand	`0.7.3`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	env_logger	`0.7.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	ring	`0.16.15`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	data-encoding	`2.3.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	oci-distribution	`0.4.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	uuid	`0.8`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	futures	`0.3.6`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	provider-archive	`0.1.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	nats	`0.8.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_yaml	`0.8.13`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.57`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	envmnt	`0.8.4`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	structopt	`0.3.17`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	latticeclient	`0.4.0`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	ctrlc	`3.1.6`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	wasm3-provider	`0.0.1`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	wasmtime-provider	`0.0.1`	Cargo.toml

All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation

Dependency advisories 37

Installing crates:wascc-host@0.14.0 pulls in 441 packages, direct and transitive: 37 carry known advisories, of which 6 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
hyper	`0.13.10`	direct	critical	6	`0.14.12`
raw-cpuid	`7.0.4`	indirect	critical	6	`9.1.1`
wasmtime	`0.19.0`	indirect	critical	50	`47.0.3`
crossbeam-utils	`0.7.2`	direct	high	2	`0.8.7`
ring	`0.16.20`	direct	high	3	`0.17.12`
tokio	`0.2.25`	direct	high	6	`1.44.2`
cranelift-codegen	`0.66.0`	indirect	high	4	`0.85.2`
protobuf	`2.28.0`	indirect	high	2	`3.7.2`
rustls	`0.18.1`	indirect	high	1	`0.23.5`
tar	`0.4.40`	indirect	high	5	`0.4.46`
wasm3	`0.1.3`	indirect	high	3	—
wasmtime-wasi	`0.19.1`	indirect	high	5	`46.0.1`
webpki	`0.21.4`	indirect	high	2	`0.22.2`
ed25519-dalek	`1.0.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`2.0.0`
h2	`0.2.7`	indirect	moderate	7	`0.4.16`
idna	`0.1.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`1.0.0`
memoffset	`0.5.6`	indirect	moderate	2	`0.6.2`
rmp-serde	`0.14.4`	indirect	moderate	2	`1.1.1`
rustix	`0.38.10`	indirect	moderate	1	`0.38.19`
time	`0.1.45`	indirect	moderate	2	`0.2.23`
rand	`0.7.3`	direct	low	2	`0.10.1`
atty	`0.2.14`	indirect	low	3	—
curve25519-dalek	`3.2.1`	indirect	low	2	`4.1.3`
shlex	`0.1.1`	indirect	low	2	`1.3.0`
structopt	`0.3.26`	direct	unknown	1	—
ansi_term	`0.12.1`	indirect	unknown	1	—
async-std	`1.13.2`	indirect	unknown	1	—
bincode	`1.3.3`	indirect	unknown	1	—
difference	`2.0.0`	indirect	unknown	1	—
instant	`0.1.13`	indirect	unknown	1	—
json	`0.12.4`	indirect	unknown	1	—
mach	`0.3.2`	indirect	unknown	1	—
net2	`0.2.39`	indirect	unknown	1	—
parity-wasm	`0.42.2`	indirect	unknown	1	—
proc-macro-error	`1.0.4`	indirect	unknown	1	—
tokio-tls	`0.3.1`	indirect	unknown	1	—
yaml-rust	`0.4.5`	indirect	unknown	1	—

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