Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 15:23 UTC

OpenVoxProject / openfact

Community implementation of Facter

RubyApache-2.0★ 19 stars⑂ 17 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗

OpenVoxProject/openfact holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated today. 6 contributors account for most of its recent work.

93
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

93
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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OpenVoxOrganization
464 followers80 public repossince Nov 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsopenfact5.7.0-128 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
16.6/36Commit cadence24/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume158 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year158
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year24

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases11 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~42.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tag5.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases42.2
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.4/60Stars19 stars
10/25Forks17 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars19
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
57.1/80Total downloads310,943 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesopenfact
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads310,943
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?

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
48.6/54Bus factor6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 13% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth86 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 33 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor6
contributors_sampled86
top_contributor_share0.127
How it's scored
12/42Issue resolution29% of issues closed
26.6/30PR acceptance101/114 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs101
open_issues15
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.286
closed_unmerged_prs13
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
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
19.2/25Owner reach464 followers of OpenVoxProject
16.4/25Track record80 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers464
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginOpenVoxProject
public_repos80
account_age_days612
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 8 days ago
20/20Version history12 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopenfact
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests15 out of 15 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
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikino
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?

84Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

84Excellent
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests15 out of 15 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 33 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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
4/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
3/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate8.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
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 data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/2,053 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes52,520
source_files_sampled2,053
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

19GitHub stars
86contributors
158commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
6bus factor
15open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.4 / 10
8.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 15:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests15 out of 15 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 33 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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
6SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfaraday-retry~> 2.1Gemfile
RubyGemsgithub_changelog_generator~> 1.18Gemfile
RubyGemspackagingGemfile
RubyGemsbeakeracceptance/Gemfile
RubyGemsbeaker-puppetacceptance/Gemfile
RubyGemsbeaker-hostgeneratoracceptance/Gemfile
RubyGemsbeaker-absacceptance/Gemfile
RubyGemsbeaker-vagrantacceptance/Gemfile
RubyGemsbeaker-vmpooleracceptance/Gemfile
RubyGemsrake>= 12.3.3acceptance/Gemfile
RubyGemsmulti_json~> 1.8acceptance/Gemfile
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsmulti_jsondirect
RubyGemspackagingdirect
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbenchmarkindirect
RubyGemshoconindirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemsostructindirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performanceindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rakeindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecindirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssys-filesystemindirect
RubyGemsthorindirect
RubyGemstsortindirect
RubyGemswebmockindirect
RubyGemsyardindirect
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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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