Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 05:24 UTC
Shopify / ruby
The Ruby Programming Language [mirror]
Shopify/ruby holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (32/100). It was last updated today. 6 contributors account for most of its recent work.
80
overall / 100Software 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.
80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 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
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish | Tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| crates.io | rubypoints to another repo — not scored | 0.0.2 | 8 | 2 | 178 days ago | languagerubyruntimedevelopment-tools |
| crates.io | jitpoints to another repo — not scored | 0.9.1 | 54 | 34 | 4115 days ago | compileinterpreterjitcompiler |
| RubyGems | ipaddrpoints to another repo — not scored | 1.2.9 | - | 12 | 147 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | tmpdirpoints to another repo — not scored | 0.3.1 | - | 7 | 640 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | englishpoints to another repo — not scored | 0.8.1 | - | 5 | 323 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | fileutilspoints to another repo — not scored | 1.8.0 | - | 17 | 324 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | etcpoints to another repo — not scored | 1.4.6 | - | 12 | 430 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | erbpoints to another repo — not scored | 6.0.7 | - | 52 | 45 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | datepoints to another repo — not scored | 3.5.1 | - | 34 | 282 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | jsonpoints to another repo — not scored | 3.0.2 | - | 247 | 9 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | zlibpoints to another repo — not scored | 3.2.3 | - | 16 | 198 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | fcntlpoints to another repo — not scored | 1.3.0 | - | 7 | 373 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | psychpoints to another repo — not scored | 5.5.0 | - | 157 | 29 days ago | — |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
84
Development activity
99Exceptional
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 35.3/36 | Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 7,456 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 7,456 |
| human_commit_share | 0.98 |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 51 |
Release discipline
62Moderate
How it's scored
| 16.2/27 | Ships releases — 11 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| 27/36 | Release recency — latest release 122 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~171.8 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 11 |
| latest_release_tag | v4.0.5 |
| releases_from_tags | yes |
| days_since_latest_release | 122 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 171.8 |
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?
32
Popularity & adoption
43Weak
How it's scored
| 27.7/60 | Stars — 52 stars |
| 9.6/25 | Forks — 15 forks |
| 5.6/15 | Watchers — 11 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 15 |
| stars | 52 |
| watchers | 11 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
19Critical
How it's scored
| 0/22.5 | README |
| 16.9/22.5 | License — license file present, not a recognized license |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | no |
| has_license | no |
| readme_badges | 4 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | github.com, travis-ci.com |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
84
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
89Excellent
How it's scored
| 48.6/54 | Bus factor — 6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 16.5/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 27% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 99 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 113 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 6 |
| contributors_sampled | 99 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.268 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
62Moderate
How it's scored
| 33.4/42 | Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed |
| 21.9/30 | PR acceptance — 354/484 decided PRs merged |
| 6.5/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 354 |
| open_issues | 110 |
| closed_issues | 427 |
| prs_merged_7d | 1 |
| prs_decided_7d | 1 |
| prs_merged_30d | 1 |
| prs_decided_30d | 2 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.795 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 130 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 2 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 1 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 2 |
Ownership & stewardship
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 20/20 | Verified domain |
| 25/25 | Owner reach — 8,607 followers of Shopify |
| 25/25 | Track record — 1,229 public repos, account ~18 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 8,607 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | yes |
| owner_login | Shopify |
| public_repos | 1,229 |
| account_age_days | 6,724 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
69
Engineering practices
88Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 39 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — .rubocop.yml |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 6.4/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | yes |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
Documentation
40Weak
How it's scored
| 0/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://www.ruby-lang.org/ |
| 0/10 | Repository description |
| 0/10 | Topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | — |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://www.ruby-lang.org/ |
| docs_site | https://www.ruby-lang.org/ |
| has_readme | no |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | no |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
61
Security posture
61Moderate
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 0/2.5 | CI-Tests — no data |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 113 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 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 4/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| 5/5 | SAST — SAST tool detected: CodeQL |
| 4.5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 4.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 15 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 3 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 6.1 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.
73
Agent context & guidance
51Moderate
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://www.ruby-lang.org/llms.txt) |
| 35.9/40 | Legible commit history — 66 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | yes |
| llms_txt_url | https://www.ruby-lang.org/llms.txt |
| legible_history_share | 0.673 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
87Excellent
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — test/net/fixtures/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 10/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — 32 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| 8/8 | Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| 8/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | test/net/fixtures/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0.32 |
| toolchain_manifests | Cargo.toml, gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml, jit/Cargo.toml, test/rubygems/test_gem_ext_cargo_builder/custom_name/ext/custom_name_lib/Cargo.toml, test/rubygems/test_gem_ext_cargo_builder/rust_ruby_example/Cargo.toml, yjit/Cargo.toml, yjit/bindgen/Cargo.toml, zjit/Cargo.toml, zjit/bindgen/Cargo.toml |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0.02 |
Code legibility for models
54Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config |
| 54.1/55 | Manageable file sizes — 135/8,503 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Ruby |
| largest_source_bytes | 3,114,306 |
| source_files_sampled | 8,503 |
| oversized_source_files | 135 |
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, sample |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples, sample |
| 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
52GitHub stars
99contributors
7,456commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
6bus factor
110open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Community profile unavailable
- crates package 'ruby' points at a different repository (https://github.com/nyar-vm/rusty-ruby); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'jit' points at a different repository (http://wwww.rustdox.com/TomBebbington/jit.rs/); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch crates package 'yjit' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'zjit' from its registry
- rubygems package 'ipaddr' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/ipaddr); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'tmpdir' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/tmpdir); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'english' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/English); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'fileutils' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/fileutils); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch crates package 'mmtk_ruby' from its registry
- rubygems package 'etc' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/etc); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'erb' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/erb); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'date' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/date); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'json' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/json); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'zlib' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/zlib); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'fcntl' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/fcntl); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'psych' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ruby/psych); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
More detail
Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
11Releases
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 1Minor 0Patch 5
Each point covers 6 days.
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| n/a | CI-Tests | no pull request found |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0 | Code-Review | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 113 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 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 8 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| 10 | SAST | SAST tool detected: CodeQL |
| 9 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 6 | Vulnerabilities | 4 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 14
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates.io | yjit | — | Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | zjit | — | Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | capstone | 0.14.0 | yjit/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | jit | 0.1.0 | yjit/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | capstone | 0.14.0 | zjit/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | jit | 0.1.0 | zjit/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | libc | 0.2 | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | log | 0.4.14 | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | env_logger | 0.11.3 | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | once_cell | 1.17.0 | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | atomic_refcell | 0.1.9 | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | probe | 0.5 | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | sysinfo | 0.32.0 | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
| crates.io | mmtk | — | gc/mmtk/Cargo.toml |
All dependencies not collected
The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
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 — crates.io, RubyGems.