Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 23:29 UTC

Shopify / liquid

Liquid markup language. Safe, customer facing template language for flexible web apps.

Ruby · LiquidMIT★ 11,873 stars⑂ 1,537 forkssince May 2008View on GitHub ↗

Shopify/liquid holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated today. 6 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
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.

94
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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ShopifyOrganization · verified domain
8,473 followers1,224 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
RubyGemsliquid5.13.0-7159 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
18/36Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 137 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year137
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 25 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 59 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~50.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv5.13.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release59
mean_days_between_releases50.1
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?

95Exceptional · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 11,873 stars
25/25Forks — 1,537 forks
15/15Watchers — 723 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,537
stars11,873
watchers723
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 137,387,612 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesliquid
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads137,387,612
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?

88Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
48.6/54Bus factor — 6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 18% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 39 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor6
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.185
How it's scored
27.3/42Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed
21.3/30PR acceptance — 732/1,030 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 17/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs732
open_issues328
closed_issues613
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.651
closed_unmerged_prs298
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 8,473 followers of Shopify
25/25Track record — 1,224 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers8,473
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginShopify
public_repos1,224
account_age_days6,702

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 59 days ago
20/20Version history — 71 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesliquid
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish59

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://shopify.github.io/liquid/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://shopify.github.io/liquid/
docs_sitehttps://shopify.github.io/liquid/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 17/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 39 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5Packaging — no data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history — 40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.4
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
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.09
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/154 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes47,235
source_files_sampled154
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

11,873GitHub stars
100contributors
137commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
25releases
6bus factor
328open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-21: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 11873 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 11,839 ★ / 1,537 ⇿
11,839Stars
1,537Forks
25Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-21. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00011,8391,537282016-122021-102026-08
Major 0Minor 9Patch 15

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 23:28 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
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 17/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 39 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsbase64—Gemfile
RubyGemsliquid-spec—Gemfile
RubyGemsactivesupport—Gemfile
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivesupport—direct
RubyGemsbase64—direct
RubyGemsliquid-spec—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal—indirect
RubyGemslru_redux—indirect
RubyGemsmemory_profiler—indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-shopify—indirect
RubyGemsstackprof—indirect
RubyGemsstrscan—indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table—indirect
RubyGemswebrick—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

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 statistics — RubyGems.