Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-25 06:00 UTC

zackees / mimalloc-pprof

mimalloc fork with pprof-compatible sampled heap profiling (Windows-first), plus Rust crates

C · Rust · PythonMIT★ 19 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

zackees/mimalloc-pprof holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (38/100). It was last updated today. 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

Zachary VorhiesPersonal account
318 followers212 public repossince Mar 2014

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.ioxtaskpoints to another repo — not scored0.1.4293555 days agoautomationmacosreleasecodesignxtaskcommand-line-utilities
crates.iodashboardpoints to another repo — not scored0.1.061320 days agoguidataplottingvisualizationiced
crates.iomimalloc-pprof0.9.43,56871 day agoallocatorheapprofilingmimallocpprofmemory-management
crates.iobenchmark-suitepoints to another repo — not scored0.1.0311208 days agotestingbenchmarking

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 624 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year624
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year29
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagmanual-39a1a25
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases5.1

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.4/60Stars — 19 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars19
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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
47.4/80Monthly downloads — 3,568 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmimalloc-pprof
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads10,705
monthly_downloads3,568
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 36 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.879
How it's scored
35.2/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance — 133/137 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs133
open_issues16
closed_issues83
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d9
prs_merged_30d59
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.838
closed_unmerged_prs4
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 backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18/25Owner reach — 318 followers of zackees
25/25Track record — 212 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers318
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginzackees
public_repos212
account_age_days4,556
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 7 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmimalloc-pprof
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 17 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://zackees.github.io/mimalloc-pprof/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsallocator, cpp, heap-profiling, memory-profiler, mimalloc, pprof, rust, windows
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://zackees.github.io/mimalloc-pprof/
docs_sitehttps://zackees.github.io/mimalloc-pprof/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 36 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3.8

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
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,610
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — rust/Cargo.toml, rust/bench-harness/Cargo.toml, rust/benchmark-suite/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — C (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 71 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.71
toolchain_manifestsrust/Cargo.toml, rust/bench-harness/Cargo.toml, rust/benchmark-suite/Cargo.toml, rust/dashboard/Cargo.toml, rust/mimalloc-pprof/Cargo.toml, rust/stress-harness/Cargo.toml, rust/xtask/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C (statically typed)
53/55Manageable file sizes — 10/277 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes199,241
source_files_sampled277
oversized_source_files10

Key facts

19GitHub stars
99contributors
624commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
16open issues
crates.io, PyPIpackage 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
  • crates package 'dashboard' points at a different repository (https://github.com/dashdeckers/dashboard); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • Could not fetch crates package 'bench-harness' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'stress-harness' from its registry
  • crates package 'benchmark-suite' points at a different repository (https://github.com/JamieH01/benchmark_suite); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index crates:mimalloc-pprof@0.9.4; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-25 06:00 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests24 out of 24 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 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 36 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iostress-harness—rust/bench-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1rust/bench-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1rust/bench-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1rust/benchmark-suite/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1rust/benchmark-suite/Cargo.toml
crates.iobench-harness—rust/dashboard/Cargo.toml
crates.iostress-harness—rust/dashboard/Cargo.toml
crates.iomimalloc-pprof—rust/dashboard/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1rust/dashboard/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1rust/dashboard/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1rust/stress-harness/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1rust/stress-harness/Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 — crates.io.