Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 14:27 UTC

Casecommons / pg_search

pg_search builds ActiveRecord named scopes that take advantage of PostgreSQL’s full text search

RubyMIT★ 1,571 stars⑂ 381 forkssince Jan 2011View on GitHub ↗

Casecommons/pg_search holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Casebook PBCOrganization
19 followers142 public repossince Dec 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemspg_search2.3.7-63707 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

44Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 44 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume22 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases60 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 707 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~215.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count60
latest_release_tagv2.3.7
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release707
mean_days_between_releases215.6
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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
51.8/60Stars1,571 stars
21.5/25Forks381 forks
4.3/15Watchers7 watchers
Inputs used
forks381
stars1,571
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
79.9/80Total downloads49,296,745 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespg_search
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads49,296,745
monthly_downloads
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth72 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled72
top_contributor_share0.827
How it's scored
27.3/42Issue resolution65% of issues closed
20.2/30PR acceptance122/181 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs122
open_issues127
closed_issues236
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.65
closed_unmerged_prs59
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
9.4/25Owner reach19 followers of Casecommons
25/25Track record142 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers19
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginCasecommons
public_repos142
account_age_days5,708
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 707 days ago
20/20Version history63 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespg_search
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish707

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://www.casebook.net
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspg-search, ruby, tsearch, trigrams, search, postgresql, activerecord, metaphone, multi-search
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.casebook.net
docs_sitehttp://www.casebook.net
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 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
3.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/42 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes50,492
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,571GitHub stars
72contributors
22commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
60releases
1bus factor
127open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 14:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
6CI-Tests11 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 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
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemspg>= 0.21.0Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcpostgresql-adapter>= 1.3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecordGemfile
RubyGemsarelGemfile
RubyGemsactiverecordGemfile
RubyGemsbenchmarkGemfile
RubyGemsdebugGemfile
RubyGemsirbGemfile
RubyGemsmutex_mGemfile
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemsrspecGemfile
RubyGemssimplecovGemfile
RubyGemssimplecov-lcovGemfile
RubyGemsstandardGemfile
RubyGemsstandard-railsGemfile
RubyGemsstandard-rspecGemfile
RubyGemswarningGemfile
RubyGemswith_modelGemfile
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactiverecorddirect
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcpostgresql-adapterdirect
RubyGemsbenchmarkdirect
RubyGemsdebugdirect
RubyGemsirbdirect
RubyGemsmutex_mdirect
RubyGemspgdirect
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsrspecdirect
RubyGemssimplecovdirect
RubyGemssimplecov-lcovdirect
RubyGemsstandarddirect
RubyGemsstandard-railsdirect
RubyGemsstandard-rspecdirect
RubyGemswarningdirect
RubyGemswith_modeldirect
RubyGemsactivesupportindirect
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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.