Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 17:40 UTC

yanganto / struct-patch

A lib help you patch Rust instance, and easy to partial update configures.

RustMIT★ 49 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Jan 2023View on GitHub ↗

yanganto/struct-patch holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (53/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Antonio YangPersonal account
113 followers232 public repossince Feb 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iostruct-patch0.13.274,7915010 days agoderivemacrooverlaypatchstructdevelopment-tools
crates.iostruct-patch-derive0.13.274,8345010 days agoderivemacrooverlaypatchstructdevelopment-tools

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence37/52 weeks with commits
16.9/18Commit volume75 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year75
human_commit_share0.57
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year37
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases49 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~8.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count49
latest_release_tagv0.13.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases8.8
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.3/60Stars49 stars
6.5/25Forks7 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars49
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
69/80Monthly downloads149,625 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesstruct-patch, struct-patch-derive
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads1,857,239
monthly_downloads149,625
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 91% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.908
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance141/146 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs141
open_issues1
closed_issues22
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.957
closed_unmerged_prs5
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
14.8/25Owner reach113 followers of yanganto
25/25Track record232 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers113
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginyanganto
public_repos232
account_age_days4,219
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history50 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesstruct-patch, struct-patch-derive
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/struct-patch
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsderive, macro, overlay, patch, struct, rust
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/struct-patch
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages15
affected_by_severitynone
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 15 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
34.6/40Legible commit history37 of 57 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.649
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, complex-example/Cargo.toml, complex-example/catalyst/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentNix
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance43 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, complex-example/Cargo.toml, complex-example/catalyst/Cargo.toml, complex-example/substrate/Cargo.toml, derive/Cargo.toml, lib/Cargo.toml, no-std-examples/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.43
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
53.2/55Manageable file sizes1/31 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes66,106
source_files_sampled31
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
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

49GitHub stars
9contributors
75commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
49releases
1bus factor
1open 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 'no-std-examples' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks
34Releases

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.

1234567712023-082025-022026-07
Major 0Minor 9Patch 25

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 17:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioproc-macro21.0derive/Cargo.toml
crates.ioquote1.0derive/Cargo.toml
crates.iosyn2.0derive/Cargo.toml
crates.iosyn-serde0.3.2derive/Cargo.toml
crates.iostruct-patch-derive=0.13.2lib/Cargo.toml
crates.iostruct-patchno-std-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iolinked_list_allocator0.10no-std-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iocortex-m-rt0.7no-std-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iocortex-m-semihosting0.5no-std-examples/Cargo.toml
crates.iopanic-semihosting0.7no-std-examples/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iocortex-m-rtdirect
crates.iocortex-m-semihostingdirect
crates.iolinked_list_allocatordirect
crates.iopanic-semihostingdirect
crates.ioproc-macro2direct
crates.ioquotedirect
crates.iostruct-patch-derive0.13.2direct
crates.iosyndirect
crates.iosyn-serdedirect
crates.ioclapindirect
crates.iohumantime-serdeindirect
crates.iopretty_assertions_sortedindirect
crates.ioserdeindirect
crates.ioserde_jsonindirect
crates.ioserde_withindirect
crates.iotomlindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 15 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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 statisticscrates.io.