Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 10:56 UTC

ankane / blazer-docker

A Docker image for Blazer

Ruby · DockerfileMIT★ 33 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Feb 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

ankane/blazer-docker holds a health index of 41 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (70/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (15/100). It was last updated 13 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

41
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.

41
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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Andrew KanePersonal account
6,950 followers445 public repossince Mar 2010

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 13 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence17/52 weeks with commits
13.9/18Commit volume34 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year34
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push13
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases22 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 39 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~115.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv3.5.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release39
mean_days_between_releases115.2
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.4/60Stars33 stars
9.6/25Forks15 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars33
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges0
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?

43Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance0/4 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues15
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs4
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach6,950 followers of ankane
25/25Track record445 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers6,950
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginankane
public_repos445
account_age_days6,036
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

17Critical · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
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?

49Weak · 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-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
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_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages130
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 130 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

15Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.1/40Legible commit history2 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.02
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
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_testsno
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes1,162
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

33GitHub stars
1contributors
34commits, last 12 months
13days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
19Releases

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.

03581013151512020-022022-112025-09
Major 1Minor 6Patch 12

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 10:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 21
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrails~> 8.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemspropshaftGemfile
RubyGemsblazer3.5.1Gemfile
RubyGemspumaGemfile
RubyGemstzinfo-dataGemfile
RubyGemsaws-sdk-athenaGemfile
RubyGemsaws-sdk-glueGemfile
RubyGemsdrill-sergeantGemfile
RubyGemscassandra-driverGemfile
RubyGemselasticsearchGemfile
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-bigqueryGemfile
RubyGemshexspaceGemfile
RubyGemsignite-clientGemfile
RubyGemsmysql2Gemfile
RubyGemsopensearch-rubyGemfile
RubyGemspgGemfile
RubyGemsrestforceGemfile
RubyGemstrino-clientGemfile
RubyGemsanomaly_detectionGemfile
RubyGemsprophet-rbGemfile
RubyGemstrendGemfile
All dependencies 130

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 109 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsanomaly_detection0.4.0direct
RubyGemsaws-sdk-athena1.101.0direct
RubyGemsaws-sdk-glue1.213.0direct
RubyGemsblazer3.5.1direct
RubyGemscassandra-driver3.2.5direct
RubyGemsdrill-sergeant0.4.0direct
RubyGemselasticsearch9.4.0direct
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-bigquery1.64.0direct
RubyGemshexspace0.3.0direct
RubyGemsignite-client0.3.0direct
RubyGemsmysql20.5.7direct
RubyGemsopensearch-ruby3.4.0direct
RubyGemspg1.6.3direct
RubyGemsprophet-rb0.7.0direct
RubyGemspropshaft1.3.2direct
RubyGemspuma8.0.2direct
RubyGemsrails8.1.3.1direct
RubyGemsrestforce8.0.1direct
RubyGemstrend0.3.0direct
RubyGemstrino-client2.2.4direct
RubyGemstzinfo-data1.2026.2direct
RubyGemsaction_text-trix2.1.19indirect
RubyGemsactioncable8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionpack8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactiontext8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivejob8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1086.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.222.1indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.11.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemscmdstan0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemselastic-transport8.5.1indirect
RubyGemselasticsearch-api9.4.0indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.4indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-gzip3.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-bigquery_v20.101.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.16.2indirect
RubyGemshashie5.0.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsione1.2.5indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.2.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2indirect
RubyGemsmail2.9.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsmsgpack1.8.3indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.6.4.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.5indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsnumo-narray-alt0.10.4indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.3.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrailties8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrdoc7.2.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.4.1indirect
RubyGemsrice4.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrover-df1.0.1indirect
RubyGemssafely_block1.0.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssignet0.21.0indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsthrift0.21.0indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.6.1indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.8.2indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.0indirect
RubyGemszlib3.2.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 130 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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