Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 03:36 UTC

Homebrew / patchelf.rb

ELF patcher implemented in pure Ruby!

RubyMIT★ 30 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Jan 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Homebrew/patchelf.rb holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (58/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HomebrewOrganization · verified domain
7,065 followers29 public repossince Mar 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemspatchelf1.6.3-130 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume120 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year120
human_commit_share0.72
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases14 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~247.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv1.6.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases247.8
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.7/60Stars30 stars
8.3/25Forks11 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars30
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.5/80Total downloads3,113,363 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespatchelf
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads3,113,363
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?

88Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.353
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
28.5/30PR acceptance95/100 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs95
open_issues0
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach7,065 followers of Homebrew
22.8/25Track record29 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers7,065
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginHomebrew
public_repos29
account_age_days5,297

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history13 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespatchelf
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 14 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspatch, elf, ruby
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

77Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 14 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
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.1
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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages30
unassessed_packages9
affected_by_severitynone
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 30 resolved dependencies against OSV. 9 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
39.3/40Legible commit history53 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.736
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapspec/files/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance28 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesspec/files/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.28
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes36,315
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

30GitHub stars
13contributors
120commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
14releases
2bus 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 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
13Releases

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.

048121122019-012022-112026-09
Major 1Minor 7Patch 5

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-06 03:35 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests14 out of 14 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 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 39 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbindata3.0.0indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemselftoolsindirect
RubyGemselftools2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.90.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov1.1.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-coberturaindirect
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura4.0.0indirect
RubyGemstty-platformindirect
RubyGemstty-platform0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsyardindirect
RubyGemsyard0.9.45indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 30 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 9 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 statisticsRubyGems.