Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 10:07 UTC

LegionIO / legion-json

JSON handling for LegionIO (symbol keys everywhere).

RubyApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2026forkView on GitHub ↗

LegionIO/legion-json holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 130 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LegionIOOrganization
23 followers209 public repossince Dec 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemslegion-json1.3.3-17130 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

49Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 130 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume25 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push130
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases5 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 130 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~5.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv1.3.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release130
mean_days_between_releases5.5

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
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_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.3/80Total downloads35,503 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslegion-json
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads35,503
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 97% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.971
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance3/3 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs3
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
9.9/25Owner reach23 followers of LegionIO
25/25Track record209 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers23
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginLegionIO
public_repos209
account_age_days2,807
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 130 days ago
20/20Version history17 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslegion-json
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish130

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 3 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
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://github.com/LegionIO/legion-json
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjson, legion-core, legionio, ruby
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://github.com/LegionIO/legion-json
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 3 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
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_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16.8/40Legible commit history11 of 35 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.314
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,943
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 35
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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes10,744
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
25commits, last 12 months
130days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 10:07 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-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsjson_pureindirect
RubyGemsmulti_jsonindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatterindirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-legionindirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.