Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 06:20 UTC

SciRuby / statsample

A suite for basic and advanced statistics on Ruby.

RubyBSD-3-Clause★ 100 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Sep 2011forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

SciRuby/statsample holds a health index of 18 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (59/100) and lowest on Vitality (13/100). It was last updated 3224 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

18
overall / 100
Critical

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.

18
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 36 is calibrated to 30 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SciRubyOrganization
124 followers35 public repossince Jan 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsstatsample2.1.0-503327 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

13Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 3,224 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 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_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3,224
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 3,327 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~517.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv2.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,327
mean_days_between_releases517.9

Community & Adoption

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

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.4/60Stars100 stars
11.9/25Forks28 forks
6.2/15Watchers14 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars100
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61/80Total downloads737,031 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesstatsample
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads737,031
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 66% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth19 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.661
How it's scored
19.8/42Issue resolution47% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance26/33 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues19
closed_issues17
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.472
closed_unmerged_prs7
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
15.1/25Owner reach124 followers of SciRuby
23.3/25Track record35 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers124
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginSciRuby
public_repos35
account_age_days5,735
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 3,327 days ago
20/20Version history50 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesstatsample
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3,327

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

24At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://github.com/sciruby/statsample
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/sciruby/statsample
docs_sitehttps://github.com/sciruby/statsample
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 9 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
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.2/40Legible commit history21 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.21
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
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.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/127 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes13,921
source_files_sampled127
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

100GitHub stars
19contributors
0commits, last 12 months
3,224days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
19open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 28 ⇿
0Stars
28Forks
2Releases

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.

0510152025302822013-052017-102022-03
Major 0Minor 1Patch 1

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 06:20 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 9/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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.