Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 04:16 UTC

alexreisner / geocoder

Complete Ruby geocoding solution.

RubyMIT★ 6,447 stars⑂ 1,201 forkssince Apr 2009View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

alexreisner/geocoder holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Alex ReisnerPersonal account
224 followers15 public repossince Oct 2008

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
RubyGemsgeocoder1.8.6-81340 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

52Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 18 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume32 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases96 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 340 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~149.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count96
latest_release_tagv1.8.6
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release340
mean_days_between_releases149.2
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?

91Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars6,447 stars
25/25Forks1,201 forks
10.8/15Watchers88 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,201
stars6,447
watchers88
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads108,944,111 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgeocoder
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads108,944,111
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
5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 78% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 33 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.779
How it's scored
40.1/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
20.1/30PR acceptance499/746 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs499
open_issues43
closed_issues885
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.954
closed_unmerged_prs247
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
16.9/25Owner reach224 followers of alexreisner
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers224
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginalexreisner
public_repos15
account_age_days6,509
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 340 days ago
20/20Version history81 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgeocoder
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish340

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://www.rubygeocoder.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgeocoding, geocoding-api, geocoding-objects, geocoding-requests
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.rubygeocoder.com
docs_sitehttp://www.rubygeocoder.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.mongodb.org/llms.txt)
21.9/40Legible commit history41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.mongodb.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.41
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
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/244 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes19,801
source_files_sampled244
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

6,447GitHub stars
100contributors
32commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
96releases
1bus factor
43open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-20: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 6447 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 6,446 ★ / 1,201 ⇿
6,446Stars
1,201Forks
62Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-20. 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.

01,2502,5003,7505,0006,2507,5006,4461,201162012-092019-082026-08
Major 0Minor 7Patch 55

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 04:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsmutex_mGemfile
RubyGemswebmockGemfile
RubyGemsmysql2~> 0.5.4Gemfile
RubyGemspg~> 1.5.9Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcpostgresql-adapterGemfile
RubyGemsjdbc-mysqlGemfile
RubyGemsjdbc-sqlite3Gemfile
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 18 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcpostgresql-adapterdirect
RubyGemsjdbc-mysqldirect
RubyGemsjdbc-sqlite3direct
RubyGemsmutex_mdirect
RubyGemsmysql2direct
RubyGemspgdirect
RubyGemswebmockdirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbenchmarkindirect
RubyGemsbigdecimalindirect
RubyGemscsvindirect
RubyGemsgeoipindirect
RubyGemsip2location_rubyindirect
RubyGemsjgeoipindirect
RubyGemsjruby-opensslindirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemsmongoidindirect
RubyGemsostructindirect
RubyGemsrailsindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrdocindirect
RubyGemsrubyzipindirect
RubyGemssqlite3indirect
RubyGemssqlite_extindirect
RubyGemstest-unitindirect
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 statisticsRubyGems.