GRASP.
Grasp · Comprehension Index Scan Report

Who still understands clap-rs/clap?

Computed from git metadata only; no source code contents were read.
touch-weighted · 3-year history window · last commit 17d ago · scores are comparable only against same-mode scans

Grasp Score
76
touch-weighted living knowledge across the repo
Active humans
21 / 138
contributors active in last 90 days vs. all-time
AI-attributed minimum
≥ 0.0%
hard evidence only. Just 8% of commits here carry any attribution signal, so the real share is higher
Inactive share
18.9%
work by authors with no commit in the window; silence, not proof of departure
Composition
35/34/25/6%
source / tests / docs / config share of scored work
Living, source only
76%
the headline recomputed over hand-written source alone
Score stability
stable
90-day-cliff variant reads 80%–82% across 60/90/180-day activity windows; read the width before the middle value

Dark-code ranking

Modules ranked by comprehension risk: the unknown share, amplified by ongoing change and thin ownership. The green meter is living knowledge.

ModuleRiskLiving knowledgeAI-attr. InactiveBusHeat/180d
clap_completeLOW 32
68%
0%29%1165
clap_complete_nushellLOW 29
68%
0%29%132
clap_mangenLOW 22
78%
0%19%164
clap_builderLOW 22
78%
0%18%153
testsLOW 19
80%
0%15%133
clap_lexLOW 18
77%
0%18%19
clap_deriveLOW 16
82%
0%13%122
examplesLOW 14
85%
0%7%134
srcLOW 12
85%
0%7%115
(root)LOW 11
88%
0%3%142
.githubLOW 9
88%
0%3%12
clap_complete_figLOW 7
91%
0%0%10

One commit touched 78% of every file changed in this window. Wide, shallow commits, a formatter run or a license-header pass, add weight for their author across the whole surface while changing little. Worth looking at what that commit was before crediting the score to its author.

Public-repo caveat: "departed" includes drive-by contributors, overstating attrition relative to a company repo with a real roster. Engagement is a proxy for comprehension. Treat it as a potential indicator rather than a diagnosis.