Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 03:29 UTC

Invoca / exception_handling

Exception handling logger/emailer

RubyMIT★ 4 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Invoca/exception_handling holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). It was last updated 22 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

57
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

InvocaOrganization
54 followers180 public repossince May 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsexception_handling3.2.0-7433 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

40Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 22 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume3 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases1 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 4,346 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencecadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv1.0.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4,346
mean_days_between_releases
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars4 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
9.9/15Watchers61 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars4
watchers61
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
0/13.5Code 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_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
69.7/80Total downloads5,090,685 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesexception_handling
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads5,090,685
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?

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth32 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled32
top_contributor_share0.242
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
21.9/30PR acceptance95/130 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 11/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs95
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs35
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 domain
12.5/25Owner reach54 followers of Invoca
25/25Track record180 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers54
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginInvoca
public_repos180
account_age_days5,594

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 33 days ago
20/20Version history74 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesexception_handling
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish33

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
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?

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 11/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities12 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.
How it's scored
11.8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories2 affected: activesupport 7.1.3.2 (high 7.5), concurrent-ruby 1.3.4 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 177 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories12
affected_packages3
assessed_packages53
unassessed_packages5
affected_by_severityhigh 3
direct_affected_packages2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 53 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 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.

38Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.6/40Legible commit history25 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.255
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 environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
52.4/55Manageable file sizes1/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes61,386
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

4GitHub stars
32contributors
3commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
1releases
3bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

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 · 2026-09-17 03:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 11/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsactivesupportGemfile
RubyGemsappraisalGemfile
RubyGemsappraisal-matrixGemfile
RubyGemsgem-releaseGemfile
RubyGemshoneybadger~> 4.11Gemfile
RubyGemspryGemfile
RubyGemspry-byebugGemfile
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemsrspecGemfile
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatterGemfile
RubyGemsrubocopGemfile
RubyGemssimplecov~> 0.22Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov~> 0.8Gemfile
RubyGemstest-unitGemfile
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby~> 1.3Gemfile
RubyGemsbase64>= 0.2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsbigdecimal>= 3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsmutex_m>= 0.2.0Gemfile
All dependencies 58

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 39 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivesupportdirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.1.3.2direct
RubyGemsappraisal2.5.0direct
RubyGemsappraisal-matrix0.3.0direct
RubyGemsbase640.2.0direct
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8direct
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.4direct
RubyGemsgem-release2.2.2direct
RubyGemshoneybadger4.12.2direct
RubyGemsmutex_m0.2.0direct
RubyGemspry0.14.2direct
RubyGemspry-byebug3.10.1direct
RubyGemsrake13.2.1direct
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0direct
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter0.6.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.63.4direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov0.9.0direct
RubyGemstest-unit3.6.2direct
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbyebug11.1.3indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.4.1indirect
RubyGemscontextual_loggerindirect
RubyGemscontextual_logger1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsescalateindirect
RubyGemsescalate0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.5indirect
RubyGemsinvoca-utilsindirect
RubyGemsinvoca-utils0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.7.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.3indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.22.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.24.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.1.0indirect
RubyGemspower_assert2.0.3indirect
RubyGemspsychindirect
RubyGemspsych5.1.2indirect
RubyGemsracc1.7.3indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.31.3indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.1.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.3.1indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.5.0indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 53 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport7.1.3.2directhigh38.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.3.4directhigh31.3.7
rexml3.2.6indirecthigh63.3.9

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.