Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 07:36 UTC

ThrowTheSwitch / Ceedling

Unit testing and build system for C projects

RubyMIT★ 848 stars⑂ 273 forkssince Jan 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

ThrowTheSwitch/Ceedling holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Security (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Throw The SwitchOrganization
332 followers14 public repossince Sep 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsceedling1.1.8-632 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,116 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,116
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year37
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv1.1.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases6.2

Community & Adoption

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

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.5/60Stars — 848 stars
20.3/25Forks — 273 forks
8.8/15Watchers — 40 watchers
Inputs used
forks273
stars848
watchers40
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

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
65.9/80Total downloads — 2,186,903 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesceedling
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads2,186,903
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 67 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled67
top_contributor_share0.567
How it's scored
29.7/42Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
25.3/30PR acceptance — 323/383 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs323
open_issues245
closed_issues592
prs_merged_7d17
prs_decided_7d17
prs_merged_30d58
prs_decided_30d59
issue_closed_ratio0.707
closed_unmerged_prs60
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.1/25Owner reach — 332 followers of ThrowTheSwitch
20.6/25Track record — 14 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers332
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginThrowTheSwitch
public_repos14
account_age_days5,478

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 63 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesceedling
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://ThrowTheSwitch.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbuild-tool, c, mocking, unit-testing, cmock, unity
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://ThrowTheSwitch.org
docs_sitehttps://ThrowTheSwitch.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.3/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: erb 2.2.0 (high 8.1)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 141 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages19
unassessed_packages9
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 19 resolved dependencies against OSV. 9 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
30.9/40Legible commit history — 58 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.58
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — plugins/fff/vendor/fff/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/examples/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/examples/driver_testing/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/examples/embedded_ui/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/gtest/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/test/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 23 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesplugins/fff/vendor/fff/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/examples/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/examples/driver_testing/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/examples/embedded_ui/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/gtest/Makefile, plugins/fff/vendor/fff/test/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.23
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 3/463 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes99,206
source_files_sampled463
oversized_source_files3
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, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
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

848GitHub stars
67contributors
1,116commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
245open 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 ★ / 273 ⇿
0Stars
273Forks
19Releases

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.

05010015020025030027052012-102019-092026-08
Major 1Minor 6Patch 12

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 07:35 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsbundler~> 2.5Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.8Gemfile
RubyGemsrake>= 12Gemfile
RubyGemsrr—Gemfile
RubyGemsrequire_all—Gemfile
RubyGemsrexml—Gemfile
RubyGemsdiy~> 1.1Gemfile
RubyGemsconstructor~> 2Gemfile
RubyGemsthor~> 1.3Gemfile
RubyGemsdeep_merge~> 1.2Gemfile
RubyGemserb>= 2.2Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark>= 0.3Gemfile
RubyGemsunicode-display_width~> 3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsparallel~> 1.26Gemfile
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbenchmark—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0direct
RubyGemsconstructor—direct
RubyGemsconstructor2.0.0direct
RubyGemsdeep_merge—direct
RubyGemsdeep_merge1.2.2direct
RubyGemsdiy—direct
RubyGemsdiy1.1.2direct
RubyGemserb—direct
RubyGemserb2.2.0direct
RubyGemsparallel—direct
RubyGemsparallel1.28.0direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrake13.2.1direct
RubyGemsrequire_all3.0.0direct
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4direct
RubyGemsrr3.1.2direct
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2direct
RubyGemsthor—direct
RubyGemsthor1.5.0direct
RubyGemsunicode-display_width—direct
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0direct
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 19 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 9 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
erb2.2.0directhigh16.0.4

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 statistics — RubyGems.