Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 15:44 UTC

YusukeIwaki / puppeteer-ruby

A Ruby port of Puppeteer

RubyApache-2.0★ 330 stars⑂ 42 forkssince Dec 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

YusukeIwaki/puppeteer-ruby holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (56/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Yusuke IwakiPersonal account
88 followers206 public repossince Apr 2015

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemspuppeteer-ruby0.53.0-8953 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 15 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 244 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year244
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push15
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 86 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 53 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~136.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count86
latest_release_tag0.53.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release53
mean_days_between_releases136.8
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.8/60Stars — 330 stars
13.4/25Forks — 42 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks42
stars330
watchers7
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
65.6/80Total downloads — 2,062,427 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespuppeteer-ruby
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads2,062,427
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.981
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance — 279/317 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs279
open_issues4
closed_issues86
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.956
closed_unmerged_prs38
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14/25Owner reach — 88 followers of YusukeIwaki
25/25Track record — 206 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers88
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginYusukeIwaki
public_repos206
account_age_days4,181
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 53 days ago
20/20Version history — 89 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespuppeteer-ruby
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish53

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc, .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 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

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/puppeteer-ruby/0.53.0
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspuppeteer, ruby
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/puppeteer-ruby/0.53.0
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 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 — 3 out of 3 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.6/40Legible commit history — 36 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.367
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,970
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc, .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 28 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.28
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 2/200 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes66,901
source_files_sampled200
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

330GitHub stars
12contributors
244commits, last 12 months
15days since last push
86releases
1bus factor
4open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-06-30: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 330 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 327 ★ / 42 ⇿
327Stars
42Forks
84Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-06-30. 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.

01252503753274282020-042023-052026-06
Major 0Minor 21Patch 63

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 15:43 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-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsasync—indirect
RubyGemsasync-http—indirect
RubyGemsasync-websocket—indirect
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemschunky_png—indirect
RubyGemsdry-inflector—indirect
RubyGemsmime-types—indirect
RubyGemspry-byebug—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrbs-inline—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemssinatra—indirect
RubyGemssteep—indirect
RubyGemsurlpattern—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.