Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 14:19 UTC

zkcrypto / jubjub

Implementation of the Jubjub elliptic curve group

RustCustom license★ 122 stars⑂ 53 forkssince Aug 2018View on GitHub ↗

zkcrypto/jubjub holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (70/100) and lowest on Vitality (45/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

65
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.

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

Ownership

411 followers15 public repossince Jul 2018

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
crates.iojubjub0.11.0229,292132 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

45Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence2/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume11 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases5 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 1,597 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~282.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tag0.9.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1,597
mean_days_between_releases282.4
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
How it's scored
33.8/60Stars122 stars
14.3/25Forks53 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks53
stars122
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
71.5/80Monthly downloads229,292 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjubjub
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads4,271,500
monthly_downloads229,292
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?

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 46% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.462
How it's scored
25.7/42Issue resolution61% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance43/52 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs43
open_issues7
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.611
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.8/25Owner reach411 followers of zkcrypto
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers411
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginzkcrypto
public_repos15
account_age_days2,995

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history13 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjubjub
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
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/jubjub/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/jubjub/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 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
0.8/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
4.5/7.5Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
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
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
18.5/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories2 affected: atty 0.2.14 (low), serde_cbor 0.11.2 (unknown)
36.4/40No advisories left outstanding2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,902 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages79
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitylow 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the crates:jubjub@0.11.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 79 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.5/40Legible commit history44 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.44
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes58,643
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

122GitHub stars
9contributors
11commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
5releases
2bus factor
7open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 53 ⇿
0Stars
53Forks
5Releases

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.

01325383722018-082022-052026-02
Major 0Minor 5Patch 0

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 14:18 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
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
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iobitvec1Cargo.toml
crates.iobls12_3810.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioff0.14Cargo.toml
crates.iogroup0.14Cargo.toml
crates.iorand_core0.10Cargo.toml
crates.iosubtle^2.2.1Cargo.toml
All dependencies 87

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 81 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobitvec1.1.1direct
crates.iobls12_3810.9.0direct
crates.ioff0.14.0direct
crates.iogroup0.14.0direct
crates.iorand_core0.10.1direct
crates.iosubtle2.6.1direct
crates.ioaddchain0.3.0indirect
crates.ioaho-corasick1.1.5indirect
crates.ioatty0.2.14indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.iobitflags1.3.2indirect
crates.iobstr0.2.17indirect
crates.iobumpalo3.20.3indirect
crates.iocast0.3.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.ioclap2.34.0indirect
crates.iocriterion0.3.6indirect
crates.iocriterion-plot0.4.5indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-deque0.8.8indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-epoch0.9.21indirect
crates.iocrossbeam-utils0.8.23indirect
crates.iocsv1.1.6indirect
crates.iocsv-core0.1.13indirect
crates.ioeither1.18.0indirect
crates.ioff_derive0.14.0indirect
crates.iofunty2.0.0indirect
crates.iofutures-core0.3.34indirect
crates.iofutures-task0.3.34indirect
crates.iofutures-util0.3.34indirect
crates.iohalf1.8.3indirect
crates.iohermit-abi0.1.19indirect
crates.ioitertools0.10.5indirect
crates.ioitoa0.4.8indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.18indirect
crates.iojs-sys0.3.105indirect
crates.iolazy_static1.5.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.189indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.3indirect
crates.ionum-bigint0.4.8indirect
crates.ionum-integer0.1.47indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.iooorandom11.1.5indirect
crates.iopin-project-lite0.2.17indirect
crates.ioplotters0.3.7indirect
crates.ioplotters-backend0.3.7indirect
crates.ioplotters-svg0.3.7indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.ioradium0.7.0indirect
crates.iorand_xorshift0.5.0indirect
crates.iorayon1.12.0indirect
crates.iorayon-core1.13.0indirect
crates.ioregex1.13.1indirect
crates.ioregex-automata0.1.10indirect
crates.ioregex-automata0.4.18indirect
crates.ioregex-syntax0.8.11indirect
crates.iorustversion1.0.23indirect
crates.ioryu1.0.23indirect
crates.iosame-file1.0.6indirect
crates.ioserde1.0.229indirect
crates.ioserde_cbor0.11.2indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.229indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.229indirect
crates.ioserde_json1.0.151indirect
crates.ioslab0.4.12indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iosyn3.0.5indirect
crates.iotap1.0.1indirect
crates.iotextwrap0.11.0indirect
crates.iotinytemplate1.2.1indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iounicode-width0.1.14indirect
crates.iowalkdir2.5.0indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.128indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro0.2.128indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro-support0.2.128indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-shared0.2.128indirect
crates.ioweb-sys0.3.105indirect
crates.iowinapi0.3.9indirect
crates.iowinapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowinapi-util0.1.11indirect
crates.iowinapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowyz0.5.1indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.23indirect
Dependency advisories 2

Installing crates:jubjub@0.11.0 pulls in 79 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
atty0.2.14indirectlow3
serde_cbor0.11.2indirectunknown1

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.