Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 14:36 UTC

DFE-Digital / dfe-reference-data

Uniform interface to high-quality reference data lists

RubyMIT★ 4 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

DFE-Digital/dfe-reference-data holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Department for Education - DigitalOrganization · verified domain
245 followers856 public repossince Jul 2017

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
14.6/18Commit volume — 41 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year41
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year16

Release discipline

83Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 46 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 44 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~53.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv3.10.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release44
mean_days_between_releases53.6

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

38Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

15Critical
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars — 4 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
7/15Watchers — 19 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars4
watchers19
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

65Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 21 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.367

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance — 147/168 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs147
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs21
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1

Ownership & stewardship

92Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
17.2/25Owner reach — 245 followers of DFE-Digital
25/25Track record — 856 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers245
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginDFE-Digital
public_repos856
account_age_days3,358

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

38Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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
advisories15
affected_packages8
assessed_packages84
unassessed_packages15
affected_by_severityhigh 6, moderate 2
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 84 resolved dependencies against OSV. 15 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

16Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history — 30 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.3
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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

Code legibility for models

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
50.5/55Manageable file sizes — 6/73 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes324,449
source_files_sampled73
oversized_source_files6

Key facts

4GitHub stars
21contributors
41commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
46releases
2bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch rubygems package 'dfe-reference-data' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 14:36 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
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsgem-release—Gemfile
RubyGemsgithub_changelog_generator—Gemfile
All dependencies 99

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 97 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsgem-release2.2.2direct
RubyGemsgithub_changelog_generator1.16.4direct
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsasync1.30.3indirect
RubyGemsasync-http0.56.6indirect
RubyGemsasync-http-faraday0.11.0indirect
RubyGemsasync-io1.33.0indirect
RubyGemsasync-pool0.3.10indirect
RubyGemsawesome_print—indirect
RubyGemsawesome_print1.9.2indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal—indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.3.1indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.5indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.5.4indirect
RubyGemsconsole1.15.3indirect
RubyGemscsv—indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-http-cache2.4.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http2.0.3indirect
RubyGemsfiber-local1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-bigquery_v20.96.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core0.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-bigquery—indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-bigquery1.61.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.15.1indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.7indirect
RubyGemsjson2.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.1.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.26.1indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.15.0indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m—indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.8indirect
RubyGemsoctokit4.25.1indirect
RubyGemsopenssl—indirect
RubyGemsopenssl3.3.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser—indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemsprism1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-hpack1.4.2indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-http0.22.6indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-http10.14.4indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-http20.14.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.7indirect
RubyGemsracc—indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake12.3.3indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.81.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.48.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.9.2indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssignet0.21.0indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—indirect
RubyGemssqlite31.6.3indirect
RubyGemstimers4.3.3indirect
RubyGemstraces0.4.1indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstzinfo—indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 84 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 15 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport8.1.1indirecthigh38.1.2.1
addressable2.8.0indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.3.5indirecthigh31.3.7
faraday2.3.0indirecthigh32.14.3
json2.16.0indirecthigh22.19.9
jwt3.1.2indirecthigh13.2.0
protocol-http10.14.4indirectmoderate10.15.1
sqlite31.6.3indirectmoderate12.9.5

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with DFE-Digital/dfe-reference-data. Read them side by side →

100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional99grpc/grpcC++ based gRPC (C++, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, PHP, C#)Exceptional99stripe/stripe-rubyRuby library for the Stripe API. Exceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐ Star us on GitHubExceptional99open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rubyOpenTelemetry Ruby API & SDK, and related gemsExceptional

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.