Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-18 14:26 UTC

FusionAuth / fusionauth-ruby-client

Ruby client library for FusionAuth

RubyApache-2.0★ 13 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Aug 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

FusionAuth/fusionauth-ruby-client holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FusionAuthOrganization
366 followers269 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
RubyGemsfusionauth_client1.69.0-830 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence27/52 weeks with commits
16.1/18Commit volume61 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year61
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 41 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~22.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag1.69.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release41
mean_days_between_releases22.3
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?

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
17.5/60Stars13 stars
4/25Forks4 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars13
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
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
58.2/80Total downloads395,429 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfusionauth_client
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads395,429
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?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 68% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.68
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
22/30PR acceptance44/60 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs16
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
18.4/25Owner reach366 followers of FusionAuth
25/25Track record269 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers366
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginFusionAuth
public_repos269
account_age_days2,939
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history83 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfusionauth_client
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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://fusionauth.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, rest-client, fusionauth, fusionauth-client
has_wikino
homepagehttps://fusionauth.io
docs_sitehttps://fusionauth.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories11
affected_packages2
assessed_packages14
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 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 14 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
15.5/40Legible commit history29 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.29
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
45/55Manageable file sizes2/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes229,986
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files2
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

13GitHub stars
17contributors
61commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
41Releases

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.

1223344422019-042021-032023-01
Major 0Minor 15Patch 26

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-18 14:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsminitest~> 5.25Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 13.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc-markdown~> 0.4.2Gemfile
All dependencies 14

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsminitest5.25.5direct
RubyGemsrake13.2.1direct
RubyGemsrdoc-markdown0.4.2direct
RubyGemscgi0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsdate3.4.1indirect
RubyGemserb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsextralite-bundle1.27indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.1indirect
RubyGemspsych5.2.3indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrdoc6.13.0indirect
RubyGemsreverse_markdown2.1.1indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.1.6indirect
RubyGemsunindent1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 14 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
erb2.2.3indirecthigh16.0.4
nokogiri1.19.1indirecthigh101.19.4

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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