Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 21:48 UTC

ai / autoprefixer-rails

Autoprefixer for Ruby and Ruby on Rails

RubyMIT★ 1,210 stars⑂ 109 forkssince Apr 2013View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

ai/autoprefixer-rails holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (72/100) and lowest on Vitality (20/100). It was last updated 517 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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.

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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Andrey SitnikPersonal account

10,137 followers103 public repossince Aug 2008@evilmartians

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
RubyGems	autoprefixer-rails	10.4.21.0	-	292	517 days ago
npm	buildpoints to another repo — not scored	0.1.4	150,474	4	5332 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

20At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 517 daysautomated commits excludeda published fix left unappliedreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedOverall rating: At Risk ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 517 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	517
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

48Weak

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 67 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36	Release recency — latest release 2,186 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~19.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	67
latest_release_tag	10.0.0
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	2,186
mean_days_between_releases	19.6

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?

72Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

73Good

How it's scored

50/60	Stars — 1,210 stars
16.9/25	Forks — 109 forks
6.5/15	Watchers — 16 watchers

Inputs used

forks	109
stars	1,210
watchers	16
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Total downloads — 164,060,028 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	autoprefixer-rails
dependents	—
ecosystems	rubygems
total_downloads	164,060,028
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?

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 57 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 38 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	57
top_contributor_share	0.868

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good

How it's scored

40.5/42	Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
25.4/30	PR acceptance — 71/84 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	71
open_issues	5
closed_issues	135
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.964
closed_unmerged_prs	13
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

75Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25	Owner reach — 10,137 followers of ai
25/25	Track record — 103 public repos, account ~18 yr old

Inputs used

followers	10,137
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	ai
public_repos	103
account_age_days	6,614

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

79Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 517 days ago
20/20	Version history — 292 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	autoprefixer-rails
ecosystems	rubygems
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	517

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://twitter.com/autoprefixer
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://twitter.com/autoprefixer
docs_site	https://twitter.com/autoprefixer
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

25At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

20At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 contributor organization profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

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 — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 38 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 25 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	2.6
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	75
security_posture_after_multiplier	20
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	26

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

45Weak

How it's scored

6.4/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: uglify-js 1.3.5 (critical 9.8), timespan 2.3.0 (high 7.5)
13.2/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: js-yaml 0.3.7 (moderate 5.9)
25.3/40	No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 3,244 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	8
affected_packages	3
assessed_packages	41
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 1, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	2

Matched the npm:build@0.1.4 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 41 packages. 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

11Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.2/40	Legible commit history — 21 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.21
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	yarn.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/21 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Ruby
largest_source_bytes	4,662
source_files_sampled	21
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

1,210GitHub stars

57contributors

0commits, last 12 months

517days since last push

67releases

1bus factor

5open issues

npm, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
npm package 'build' points at a different repository (https://github.com/jonlb/node-build); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 109 ⇿

0Stars

109Forks

67Releases

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 3Minor 15Patch 49

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.6 / 10

2.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 21:48 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 7/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 38 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	25 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 10

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
RubyGems	execjs	`~> 2`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rails	`>= 5.0.0.beta2`	Gemfile
RubyGems	sassc-rails	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	sprockets	`>= 4.0.0.beta1`	Gemfile
RubyGems	mini_racer	`—`	Gemfile
npm	autoprefixer	`^10.4.21`	build/package.json
npm	nop	`^1.0.0`	build/package.json
npm	postcss	`^8.2.4`	build/package.json
npm	text-encoding	`^0.7.0`	build/package.json
npm	whatwg-url	`^9.0.0`	build/package.json

All dependencies 76

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 66 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	autoprefixer	`10.4.21`	direct
npm	nop	`1.0.0`	direct
npm	postcss	`8.2.4`	direct
npm	text-encoding	`0.7.0`	direct
npm	whatwg-url	`9.0.0`	direct
RubyGems	execjs	`—`	direct
RubyGems	mini_racer	`—`	direct
RubyGems	rails	`—`	direct
RubyGems	sassc-rails	`—`	direct
RubyGems	sprockets	`—`	direct
npm	@rollup/plugin-alias	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-commonjs	`17.0.0`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-inject	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-json	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-node-resolve	`13.3.0`	indirect
npm	@rollup/plugin-replace	`2.3.4`	indirect
npm	@rollup/pluginutils	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`0.0.39`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`0.0.45`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`14.14.16`	indirect
npm	@types/resolve	`1.17.1`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`1.1.11`	indirect
npm	browserslist	`4.24.4`	indirect
npm	builtin-modules	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	caniuse-lite	`1.0.30001713`	indirect
npm	colorette	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	commondir	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	concat-map	`0.0.1`	indirect
npm	deepmerge	`4.2.2`	indirect
npm	electron-to-chromium	`1.5.136`	indirect
npm	escalade	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`0.6.1`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	fraction.js	`4.3.7`	indirect
npm	fs.realpath	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	function-bind	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	glob	`7.1.6`	indirect
npm	has	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	inflight	`1.0.6`	indirect
npm	inherits	`2.0.4`	indirect
npm	is-builtin-module	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	is-core-module	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	is-module	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-reference	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.25.7`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`3.0.4`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.11`	indirect
npm	node-releases	`2.0.19`	indirect
npm	normalize-range	`0.1.2`	indirect
npm	once	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	path-is-absolute	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	path-parse	`1.0.6`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.2.2`	indirect
npm	postcss-value-parser	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	punycode	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	resolve	`1.19.0`	indirect
npm	rollup	`2.79.2`	indirect
npm	rollup-plugin-inject	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	rollup-plugin-node-polyfills	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	rollup-pluginutils	`2.8.2`	indirect
npm	slash	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	source-map	`0.6.1`	indirect
npm	sourcemap-codec	`1.4.8`	indirect
npm	tr46	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	update-browserslist-db	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	webidl-conversions	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	wrappy	`1.0.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rake	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rspec-rails	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-packaging	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	standard	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 3

Installing npm:build@0.1.4 pulls in 41 packages, direct and transitive: 3 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
uglify-js	`1.3.5`	direct	critical	2	`2.7.2`
timespan	`2.3.0`	direct	high	1	—
js-yaml	`0.3.7`	indirect	moderate	5	`4.2.0`

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.

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, npm.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records