alphagov / siteimprove_api_client
Autogenerated ruby client for SiteImprove API
alphagov/siteimprove_api_client holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (79/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (26/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.
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.
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RubyGems | siteimprove_api_clientpoints to another repo — not scored | 1.0.5 | - | 6 | 51 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
Development activity
Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it
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 assessedHow it's scored
| 18/36 | Push recency — last push 47 days ago |
| 9/36 | Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits |
| 12.1/18 | Commit volume — 21 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 21 |
| human_commit_share | 0.72 |
| days_since_last_push | 47 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 13 |
Release discipline
How it's scored
| 16.2/27 | Ships releases — 6 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 51 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~219.8 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 6 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.0.5 |
| releases_from_tags | yes |
| days_since_latest_release | 51 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 219.8 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
Popularity & adoption
How it's scored
| 0/60 | Stars — 0 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 1 forks |
| 7.7/15 | Watchers — 25 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 1 |
| stars | 0 |
| watchers | 25 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 0/22.5 | License — no license file detected |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 6.3/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | no |
| readme_badges | 0 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | yes |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
How it's scored
| 36/54 | Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 15.7/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 30% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 16 contributors |
| 6/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 3 |
| contributors_sampled | 16 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.302 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
How it's scored
| 0/42 | Issue resolution — no issues or no data |
| 22.9/30 | PR acceptance — 58/76 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 15/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 58 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 0 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | — |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 18 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
Ownership & stewardship
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain |
| 23.1/25 | Owner reach — 1,624 followers of alphagov |
| 25/25 | Track record — 1,456 public repos, account ~15 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 1,624 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | no |
| owner_login | alphagov |
| public_repos | 1,456 |
| account_age_days | 5,708 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
Engineering practices
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 4 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — .rubocop.yml |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 18/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 1 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | govuk |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | — |
| docs_site | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
Security posture
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 |
| 2.2/2.5 | CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| 1.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 0/2.5 | License — license file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — project is archived |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 1/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| 4.5/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9 |
| 5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 16 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 2 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 5.9 |
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.
Agent context & guidance
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 57 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.792 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
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 |
| 0/10 | Reproducible environment |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 8/8 | Automated maintenance — 28 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| 2/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | — |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0.28 |
Code legibility for models
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config |
| 54.7/55 | Manageable file sizes — 12/2,596 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Ruby |
| largest_source_bytes | 942,324 |
| source_files_sampled | 2,596 |
| oversized_source_files | 12 |
Key facts
Data collection warnings
- rubygems package 'siteimprove_api_client' points at a different repository (https://openapi-generator.tech); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 9 | CI-Tests | 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 10 | Code-Review | all changesets reviewed |
| 6 | Contributors | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 10 | Dependency-Update-Tool | update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 0 | License | license file not detected |
| 0 | Maintained | project is archived |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 2 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| 9 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9 |
| 10 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
All dependencies not collected
The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
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.