Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 12:52 UTC

zesterer / spin-rs

[spin-rs has moved to Codeberg!] Spin-based synchronization primitives

RustMIT★ 593 stars⑂ 107 forkssince Jul 2014archivedView on GitHub ↗

zesterer/spin-rs holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). 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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Joshua BarrettoPersonal account

1,339 followers162 public repossince Jan 2013

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	spinpoints to another repo — not scored	0.12.3	38,748,356	49	9 days ago	mutex rwlock spinlock

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

27At Risk

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

9.9/36	Push recency — last push 104 days ago
6.9/36	Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18	Commit volume — 14 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	14
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	104
active_weeks_last_year	10

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

66Good

How it's scored

45/60	Stars — 593 stars
16.9/25	Forks — 107 forks
4.3/15	Watchers — 7 watchers

Inputs used

forks	107
stars	593
watchers	7
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 (MIT)
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

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 56 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	56
top_contributor_share	0.379

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent

How it's scored

36.8/42	Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
27.5/30	PR acceptance — 111/121 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 20/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	111
open_issues	8
closed_issues	56
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.875
closed_unmerged_prs	10
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

72Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22.5/25	Owner reach — 1,339 followers of zesterer
25/25	Track record — 162 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,339
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	zesterer
public_repos	162
account_age_days	4,972

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
6/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://codeberg.org/zesterer/spin
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://codeberg.org/zesterer/spin
docs_site	https://codeberg.org/zesterer/spin
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?

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 6 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 20/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no 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
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
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
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	5.2

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

Dependency advisories

97Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
23/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: atty 0.2.14 (low)
39/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,880 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	3
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	70
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	low 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Matched the crates:spin@0.12.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 70 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

28At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28.3/40	Legible commit history — 53 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.53
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

24At Risk

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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	no
lockfiles	—
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

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	36,976
source_files_sampled	12
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

593GitHub stars

56contributors

14commits, last 12 months

104days since last push

0releases

2bus factor

8open issues

crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
crates package 'spin' points at a different repository (https://codeberg.org/zesterer/spin); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 107 ⇿

0Stars

107Forks

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.

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10

5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 12:51 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3	CI-Tests	6 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6	Code-Review	Found 20/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no 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
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 3

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	lock_api_crate	`0.4`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	portable-atomic	`1.3`	Cargo.toml
crates.io	core	`1.0.0`	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 1

Installing crates:spin@0.12.3 pulls in 70 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
atty	`0.2.14`	indirect	low	3	—

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