Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-05 19:02 UTC

PixarAnimationStudios / ruby-jss

ruby-jss provides native ruby access to the REST APIs of Jamf Pro, an enterprise/education tool for managing Apple devices, from jamf.com. The Jamf module provides access to both APIs. Jamf Pro objects are implemented as classes and interact with each other. Authentication tokens, data format and other details are handled under the hood to allow simpler, intuitive automation of Jamf-related tasks.

RubyCustom license★ 97 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Oct 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#api#jamf-pro#ruby

PixarAnimationStudios/ruby-jss holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (75/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (27/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Pixar Animation StudiosOrganization
1,065 followers10 public repossince Apr 2012

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18Commit volume — 56 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year56
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

80Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 92 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~85.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count92
latest_release_tagv5.1.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases85.6
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

51Moderate
How it's scored
32.2/60Stars — 97 stars
11.9/25Forks — 28 forks
7.1/15Watchers — 20 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars97
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

59Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.944

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good
How it's scored
35.8/42Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 41/45 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs41
open_issues9
closed_issues52
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.852
closed_unmerged_prs4
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.

Ownership & stewardship

71Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
21.8/25Owner reach — 1,065 followers of PixarAnimationStudios
19.6/25Track record — 10 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,065
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginPixarAnimationStudios
public_repos10
account_age_days5,216

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://pixaranimationstudios.github.io/jss-api-gem/index.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapi, jamf-pro, ruby
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://pixaranimationstudios.github.io/jss-api-gem/index.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

35Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): ci_tests, dangerous_workflow, packaging, pinned_dependencies, signed_releases, token_permissions. 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0.5/40Legible commit history — 1 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.01
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

37Weak
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 practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 2/335 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes69,763
source_files_sampled335
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

97GitHub stars
12contributors
56commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
92releases
1bus factor
9open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 28 ⇿
0Stars
28Forks
83Releases

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.

0510152025302822014-102020-032025-08
Major 4Minor 20Patch 59

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 19:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsCFPropertyList—indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart—indirect
RubyGemsimmutable-struct—indirect
RubyGemspixar-ruby-extensions—indirect
RubyGemsrexml—indirect
RubyGemsruby-mysql—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
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

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with PixarAnimationStudios/ruby-jss. Read them side by side →

96microsoft/kiotaOpenAPI based HTTP Client code generatorExceptional92ruby-grape/grapeAn opinionated framework for creating REST-like APIs in Ruby.Excellent99open-telemetry/opentelemetry-jsOpenTelemetry JavaScript ClientExceptional99scalar/scalarScalar is an open-source API platform:　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　🌐 Modern REST API Client　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　📖 Beautiful API References　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　✨ 1st-Class OpenAPI/Swagger SupportExceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional99fastify/fastifyFast and low overhead web framework, for Node.jsExceptional

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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