Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 05:13 UTC

Shopify / cli-kit

Framework/Engine for command line interfaces

RubyMIT★ 161 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Jun 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Shopify/cli-kit holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (83/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (58/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ShopifyOrganization · verified domain
8,607 followers1,229 public repossince Apr 2008

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscli-kit5.3.0-123 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
12.1/18Commit volume21 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year21
human_commit_share0.8
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases3 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~1,529.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv5.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases1,529.5
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.8/60Stars161 stars
9.8/25Forks16 forks
14.1/15Watchers343 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars161
watchers343
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.9/80Total downloads3,434,994 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescli-kit
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads3,434,994
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?

83Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth24 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled24
top_contributor_share0.317
How it's scored
29.4/42Issue resolution70% of issues closed
23.3/30PR acceptance407/525 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance5/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 10/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs407
open_issues3
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.7
closed_unmerged_prs118
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach8,607 followers of Shopify
25/25Track record1,229 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers8,607
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginShopify
public_repos1,229
account_age_days6,724

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history12 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescli-kit
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/cli-kit/5.3.0
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/cli-kit/5.3.0
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 10/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 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
6/7.5Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packagingno data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages48
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 48 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.3/40Legible commit history56 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.7
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance20 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.2
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/62 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes15,491
source_files_sampled62
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

161GitHub stars
24contributors
21commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
3releases
2bus factor
3open issues
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 ★ / 16 ⇿
0Stars
16Forks

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.

04812161622018-082022-062026-03

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10
6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 05:12 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
8CI-Tests11 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 10/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemssorbet-staticGemfile
RubyGemstapiocaGemfile
All dependencies 55

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 53 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemssorbet-static0.6.12627direct
RubyGemstapioca0.16.11direct
RubyGemsansi1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemsbyebug12.0.0indirect
RubyGemscli-uiindirect
RubyGemscli-ui2.4.0indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.15.1indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsminitestindirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest-reportersindirect
RubyGemsminitest-reporters1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsmochaindirect
RubyGemsmocha2.4.5indirect
RubyGemsnetrc0.11.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.9.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrbi0.3.6indirect
RubyGemsrbs3.9.5indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.81.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.47.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-shopify2.17.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-sorbet0.10.5indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemssorbet0.6.12627indirect
RubyGemssorbet-runtime0.6.12627indirect
RubyGemssorbet-static-and-runtime0.6.12627indirect
RubyGemsspoom1.6.3indirect
RubyGemsthor1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsyard0.9.37indirect
RubyGemsyard-sorbet0.9.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 48 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
json2.15.1indirecthigh22.19.9
yard0.9.37indirectmoderate20.9.44

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.

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.