Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 01:29 UTC

afair / postgresql_cursor

ActiveRecord PostgreSQL Adapter extension for using a cursor to return a large result set

RubyMIT★ 651 stars⑂ 46 forkssince May 2010View on GitHub ↗

afair/postgresql_cursor holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (65/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (29/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Allen FairPersonal account
40 followers29 public repossince Feb 2008@biglist

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
RubyGemspostgresql_cursor0.6.11-216 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 6 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume5 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases19 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 6 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~318.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv0.6.11
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases318.5
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.6/60Stars651 stars
13.8/25Forks46 forks
5/15Watchers9 watchers
Inputs used
forks46
stars651
watchers9
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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
How it's scored
70.3/80Total downloads5,795,677 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespostgresql_cursor
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads5,795,677
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth20 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.796
How it's scored
36.2/42Issue resolution86% of issues closed
24.3/30PR acceptance30/37 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs30
open_issues4
closed_issues25
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.862
closed_unmerged_prs7
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
11.6/25Owner reach40 followers of afair
22.8/25Track record29 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers40
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginafair
public_repos29
account_age_days6,718
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 6 days ago
20/20Version history21 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespostgresql_cursor
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish6

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
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-Tests0 out of 11 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, activerecord, cursor, large-scale, postgresql, postgresql-cursor, for-update, batch, ruby-gem
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
7.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: activerecord 6.0.0 (critical 9.8)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
32.1/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,967 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories16
affected_packages4
assessed_packages12
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 12 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

29At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.5/40Legible commit history46 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.46
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes9,755
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

651GitHub stars
20contributors
5commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
4open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 651 ★ / 46 ⇿
651Stars
46Forks
18Releases

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.

012525037550062575065143502010-052018-062026-06
Major 0Minor 5Patch 13

Each point covers 15 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 01:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 9/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsactiverecord~> 7.0.4.1test-app/Gemfile
RubyGemspgtest-app/Gemfile
RubyGemspostgresql_cursortest-app/Gemfile
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactiverecorddirect
RubyGemsactiverecord6.0.0direct
RubyGemspgdirect
RubyGemspg1.1.4direct
RubyGemspostgresql_cursordirect
RubyGemsactivemodel6.0.0indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport6.0.0indirect
RubyGemsappraisalindirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsirbindirect
RubyGemsirb1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsminitestindirect
RubyGemsminitest5.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.0indirect
RubyGemsthread_safe0.3.6indirect
RubyGemstzinfo1.2.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.1.10indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 12 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activerecord6.0.0directcritical58.0.2.1
activesupport6.0.0indirectcritical78.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.1.5indirecthigh31.3.7
tzinfo1.2.5indirecthigh11.2.10

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.