Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 08:03 UTC

CocoaPods / cocoapods-plugins

Get info about available CocoaPods plugins.

RubyMIT★ 80 stars⑂ 36 forkssince Apr 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

CocoaPods/cocoapods-plugins holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (71/100) and lowest on Vitality (21/100). It was last updated 860 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

28
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

28
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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CocoaPodsOrganization
364 followers70 public repossince Nov 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscocoapods-plugins1.0.0-123774 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 860 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push860
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,774 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~62.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tag1.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,774
mean_days_between_releases62.2
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.8/60Stars — 80 stars
12.9/25Forks — 36 forks
6.7/15Watchers — 17 watchers
Inputs used
forks36
stars80
watchers17
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 93,920,076 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescocoapods-plugins
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads93,920,076
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 34% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 61 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.343
How it's scored
29.7/42Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance — 47/49 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs47
open_issues28
closed_issues68
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.708
closed_unmerged_prs2
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.4/25Owner reach — 364 followers of CocoaPods
25/25Track record — 70 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers364
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginCocoaPods
public_repos70
account_age_days5,416
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 3,774 days ago
20/20Version history — 12 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescocoapods-plugins
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3,774

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/cocoapods-plugins/1.0.0
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/cocoapods-plugins/1.0.0
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 61 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories16
affected_packages8
assessed_packages40
unassessed_packages3
affected_by_severityhigh 6, moderate 1, low 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 40 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history — 40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.4
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes4,431
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

80GitHub stars
31contributors
0commits, last 12 months
860days since last push
11releases
2bus factor
28open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 36 ⇿
0Stars
36Forks
3Releases

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.

01325383622015-052020-062025-07
Major 1Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.5 / 10
2.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 08:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 61 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities16 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 43

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivesupport4.2.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.3.7indirect
RubyGemsast2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsastrolabe1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbacon1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-downloader0.9.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-trunk0.6.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-try0.4.3indirect
RubyGemscodeclimate-test-reporter0.4.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscrack0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsescape0.0.4indirect
RubyGemsfuzzy_match2.0.4indirect
RubyGemsi18n0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsjson1.8.2indirect
RubyGemsmetaclass0.0.4indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.5.1indirect
RubyGemsmocha1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmocha-on-bacon0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsmolinillo0.2.3indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.10.1indirect
RubyGemsnap—indirect
RubyGemsnap0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsnetrc0.7.8indirect
RubyGemsopen41.3.4indirect
RubyGemsparser2.2.0.3indirect
RubyGemspowerpack0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsprettybacon0.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrainbow2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake10.3.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop0.29.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.7.5indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.4indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.9.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsthread_safe0.3.5indirect
RubyGemstzinfo1.2.2indirect
RubyGemsvcr2.9.3indirect
RubyGemswebmock1.20.4indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj0.23.1indirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 40 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport4.2.1indirecthigh78.1.2.1
addressable2.3.7indirecthigh22.9.0
cocoapods-downloader0.9.0indirecthigh21.6.3
i18n0.7.0indirecthigh10.8.0
json1.8.2indirecthigh12.3.0
tzinfo1.2.2indirecthigh11.2.10
rake10.3.2indirectmoderate112.3.3
rubocop0.29.1indirectlow10.49.0

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 statistics — RubyGems.