Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 23:39 UTC

PostHog / posthog-ruby

Send usage data from your Ruby code to PostHog.

RubyCustom license★ 36 stars⑂ 35 forkssince Feb 2020View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryPluginhow this is determined

PostHog/posthog-ruby holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (64/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 83 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PostHogOrganization · verified domain

2,161 followers372 public repossince Jan 2020

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
RubyGems	posthog-ruby	3.23.6	-	88	1 day ago
RubyGems	posthog-rails	3.18.5	-	45	1 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

90Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
25.6/36	Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 200 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	200
human_commit_share	0.44
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	37

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 97 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~2.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	97
latest_release_tag	posthog-rails-v3.18.5
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1
mean_days_between_releases	2.3

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?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak

How it's scored

25/60	Stars — 36 stars
12.8/25	Forks — 35 forks
5.6/15	Watchers — 11 watchers

Inputs used

forks	35
stars	36
watchers	11
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

86Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

86Excellent

How it's scored

69/80	Total downloads — 4,323,665 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	posthog-ruby, posthog-rails
dependents	—
ecosystems	rubygems
total_downloads	4,323,665
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?

90Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

83Excellent

How it's scored

43.2/54	Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 39 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	4
contributors_sampled	39
top_contributor_share	0.263

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent

How it's scored

34/42	Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
26.6/30	PR acceptance — 197/222 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

merged_prs	197
open_issues	8
closed_issues	34
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	12
prs_decided_30d	12
issue_closed_ratio	0.81
closed_unmerged_prs	25
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

99Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
24/25	Owner reach — 2,161 followers of PostHog
25/25	Track record — 372 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,161
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	PostHog
public_repos	372
account_age_days	2,414

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on rubygems
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20	Version history — 88 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	posthog-ruby, posthog-rails
ecosystems	rubygems
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://posthog.com/docs/libraries/ruby
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ruby
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://posthog.com/docs/libraries/ruby
docs_site	https://posthog.com/docs/libraries/ruby
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

86Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

82Excellent

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 10/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	8.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	123
unassessed_packages	2
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 123 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://posthog.com/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 44 of 44 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://posthog.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 26 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Gemfile.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.26

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
52.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 3/79 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Ruby
largest_source_bytes	190,322
source_files_sampled	79
oversized_source_files	3

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

36GitHub stars

39contributors

200commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

97releases

4bus factor

8open issues

npm, 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 ★ / 35 ⇿

0Stars

35Forks

89Releases

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.

Major 2Minor 23Patch 34

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.2 / 10

8.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 23:39 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
4	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5	Code-Review	Found 10/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10	Contributors	project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
9	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
RubyGems	concurrent-ruby	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	irb	`—`	Gemfile

All dependencies 125

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 122 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
RubyGems	concurrent-ruby	`—`	direct
RubyGems	concurrent-ruby	`1.3.8`	direct
RubyGems	irb	`1.18.0`	direct
npm	@changesets/apply-release-plan	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/assemble-release-plan	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/changelog-git	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/cli	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	@changesets/config	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/errors	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/format	`0.1.2`	indirect
npm	@changesets/get-dependents-graph	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/git	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/parse	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/pre	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/read	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/should-skip-package	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/types	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/write	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	@clack/core	`1.4.3`	indirect
npm	@clack/prompts	`1.7.0`	indirect
npm	@manypkg/find-root	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	@manypkg/get-packages	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	@manypkg/tools	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	@pnpm/deps.graph-sequencer	`1100.0.1`	indirect
npm	cac	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	fast-string-truncated-width	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	fast-string-width	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	fast-wrap-ansi	`0.2.2`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	human-id	`4.2.1`	indirect
npm	import-meta-resolve	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	jju	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	jsonc-parser	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	launch-editor	`2.14.1`	indirect
npm	package-manager-detector	`1.8.0`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.8.5`	indirect
npm	shell-quote	`1.10.0`	indirect
npm	sisteransi	`1.0.5`	indirect
npm	tinyexec	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.17`	indirect
npm	yaml	`2.9.0`	indirect
RubyGems	actionpack	`7.2.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	actionview	`7.2.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	activesupport	`7.2.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	addressable	`2.9.0`	indirect
RubyGems	ast	`2.4.3`	indirect
RubyGems	base64	`0.3.0`	indirect
RubyGems	benchmark	`0.5.0`	indirect
RubyGems	bigdecimal	`4.1.2`	indirect
RubyGems	builder	`3.3.0`	indirect
RubyGems	cgi	`0.5.1`	indirect
RubyGems	commander	`5.0.0`	indirect
RubyGems	connection_pool	`3.0.2`	indirect
RubyGems	crack	`1.0.1`	indirect
RubyGems	crass	`1.0.7`	indirect
RubyGems	date	`3.5.1`	indirect
RubyGems	diff-lcs	`1.6.2`	indirect
RubyGems	drb	`2.2.3`	indirect
RubyGems	erb	`4.0.4.1`	indirect
RubyGems	erubi	`1.13.1`	indirect
RubyGems	haml	`7.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	hashdiff	`1.2.1`	indirect
RubyGems	highline	`3.0.1`	indirect
RubyGems	i18n	`1.14.8`	indirect
RubyGems	io-console	`0.8.2`	indirect
RubyGems	json	`2.21.2`	indirect
RubyGems	language_server-protocol	`3.17.0.6`	indirect
RubyGems	lint_roller	`1.1.0`	indirect
RubyGems	logger	`1.7.0`	indirect
RubyGems	loofah	`2.25.2`	indirect
RubyGems	minitest	`5.27.0`	indirect
RubyGems	nokogiri	`1.19.4`	indirect
RubyGems	oj	`3.17.6`	indirect
RubyGems	ostruct	`0.6.3`	indirect
RubyGems	parallel	`1.28.0`	indirect
RubyGems	parser	`3.3.12.0`	indirect
RubyGems	pp	`0.6.4`	indirect
RubyGems	prettier	`4.0.4`	indirect
RubyGems	prettier_print	`1.2.1`	indirect
RubyGems	prettyprint	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	prism	`1.9.0`	indirect
RubyGems	psych	`5.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	public_suffix	`6.0.2`	indirect
RubyGems	racc	`1.8.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rack	`3.2.6`	indirect
RubyGems	rack-session	`2.1.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rack-test	`2.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	rackup	`2.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rails-dom-testing	`2.3.0`	indirect
RubyGems	rails-html-sanitizer	`1.7.1`	indirect
RubyGems	railties	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	railties	`7.2.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rainbow	`3.1.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rake	`13.4.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rbs	`4.0.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rdoc	`7.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	regexp_parser	`2.12.0`	indirect
RubyGems	reline	`0.6.3`	indirect
RubyGems	rexml	`3.4.4`	indirect
RubyGems	rspec	`3.13.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rspec-core	`3.13.6`	indirect
RubyGems	rspec-expectations	`3.13.5`	indirect
RubyGems	rspec-mocks	`3.13.8`	indirect
RubyGems	rspec-support	`3.13.7`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop	`1.90.0`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-ast	`1.50.0`	indirect
RubyGems	ruby-progressbar	`1.13.0`	indirect
RubyGems	securerandom	`0.4.1`	indirect
RubyGems	stringio	`3.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	syntax_tree	`6.3.0`	indirect
RubyGems	syntax_tree-haml	`4.0.3`	indirect
RubyGems	syntax_tree-rbs	`1.0.0`	indirect
RubyGems	temple	`0.10.4`	indirect
RubyGems	thor	`1.5.0`	indirect
RubyGems	tilt	`2.7.0`	indirect
RubyGems	timecop	`0.9.11`	indirect
RubyGems	tsort	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	tzinfo	`2.0.6`	indirect
RubyGems	unicode-display_width	`3.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	unicode-emoji	`4.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	useragent	`0.16.11`	indirect
RubyGems	webmock	`3.26.3`	indirect
RubyGems	zeitwerk	`2.7.5`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 123 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 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.

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 statistics — RubyGems.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records