Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 13:41 UTC

activescaffold / active_scaffold_sortable

Fancy pants drag-drop sortable lists for ActiveScaffold

Ruby · JavaScriptMIT★ 55 stars⑂ 19 forkssince May 2008View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

activescaffold/active_scaffold_sortable holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (46/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 36 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

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.

39
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

activescaffoldOrganization
75 followers18 public repossince May 2008

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

45Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

27At Risk
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 36 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year4
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push36
active_weeks_last_year2

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 36 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 36 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~299.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv3.6.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release36
mean_days_between_releases299.6
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

39Weak
How it's scored
28.1/60Stars — 55 stars
10.5/25Forks — 19 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks19
stars55
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

46Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.678

Issue & PR responsiveness

42Weak
How it's scored
23.4/42Issue resolution — 56% of issues closed
13.4/30PR acceptance — 13/29 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs13
open_issues4
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.556
closed_unmerged_prs16
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.

Ownership & stewardship

65Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
13.5/25Owner reach — 75 followers of activescaffold
21.3/25Track record — 18 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers75
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginactivescaffold
public_repos18
account_age_days6,692

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://tim.theenchanter.com/2008/05/activescaffoldsortable-updated-with.html
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://tim.theenchanter.com/2008/05/activescaffoldsortable-updated-with.html
docs_sitehttp://tim.theenchanter.com/2008/05/activescaffoldsortable-updated-with.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 76 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories76
affected_packages15
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 6, moderate 4, low 3
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 73 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

7Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
7.1/40Legible commit history — 12 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.133
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

44Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes3,324
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

55GitHub stars
5contributors
4commits, last 12 months
36days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 19 ⇿
0Stars
19Forks
34Releases

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.

03581013151422009-012017-062025-11
Major 1Minor 6Patch 27

Each point covers 16 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 13:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities76 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 74

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 74 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactioncable8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactionpack8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactiontext8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactive_scaffold—indirect
RubyGemsactive_scaffold4.0.0.rc1indirect
RubyGemsactivejob8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.4indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.4.1indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsdate3.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.1indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.6indirect
RubyGemsice_nine0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsirb1.14.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.3.1indirect
RubyGemslogger1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.23.1indirect
RubyGemsmail2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsmetaclass0.0.4indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.8indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.4indirect
RubyGemsmocha1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.4indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.16.8indirect
RubyGemspsych5.2.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.1.8indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrails8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.6.1indirect
RubyGemsrailties8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrake13.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrdoc6.8.1indirect
RubyGemsreline0.5.12indirect
RubyGemsrequest_store1.7.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsshoulda3.5.0indirect
RubyGemsshoulda-context1.2.2indirect
RubyGemsshoulda-matchers2.8.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.16.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.10.2indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.1.2indirect
RubyGemsthor1.3.2indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.4.2indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuri1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.7.6indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.7.1indirect
Dependency advisories 15

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 73 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 15 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activestorage8.0.0indirectcritical78.1.3.1
rack-session2.0.0indirectcritical22.1.2
activesupport8.0.0indirecthigh38.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.3.4indirecthigh31.3.7
nokogiri1.16.8indirecthigh151.19.4
rack3.1.8indirecthigh243.2.6
uri1.0.2indirecthigh21.0.4
websocket-driver0.7.6indirecthigh40.8.2
activerecord8.0.0indirectmoderate18.0.2.1
loofah2.23.1indirectmoderate12.25.2
mail2.8.1indirectmoderate12.9.1
net-imap0.5.1indirectmoderate100.6.4.1
actionpack8.0.0indirectlow18.0.0.1
actionview8.0.0indirectlow18.1.2.1
rails-html-sanitizer1.6.1indirectlow11.7.1

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with activescaffold/active_scaffold_sortable. Read them side by side →

100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional99grpc/grpcC++ based gRPC (C++, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, PHP, C#)Exceptional99stripe/stripe-rubyRuby library for the Stripe API. Exceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐ Star us on GitHubExceptional99open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rubyOpenTelemetry Ruby API & SDK, and related gemsExceptional

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.