Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 03:50 UTC

ankane / searchkick

Intelligent search made easy

RubyMIT★ 6,721 stars⑂ 761 forkssince Jul 2013View on GitHub ↗

ankane/searchkick holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (82/100) and lowest on Security (37/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Andrew KanePersonal account
6,938 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.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemssearchkick6.1.2-14384 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence20/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume290 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year290
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year20
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 84 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~47.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv6.1.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release84
mean_days_between_releases47.5
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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars6,721 stars
24/25Forks761 forks
11/15Watchers95 watchers
Inputs used
forks761
stars6,721
watchers95
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
77.4/80Total downloads27,957,353 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessearchkick
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads27,957,353
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 95% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.947
How it's scored
41.8/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
12.3/30PR acceptance156/381 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs156
open_issues5
closed_issues1,356
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.996
closed_unmerged_prs225
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 reach6,938 followers of ankane
25/25Track record445 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers6,938
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginankane
public_repos445
account_age_days6,013
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 84 days ago
20/20Version history143 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessearchkick
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish84

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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 sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/searchkick/6.1.2
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselasticsearch, opensearch, rails
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/searchkick/6.1.2
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

37Weak · 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 1 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 12 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
3.8/7.5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.6
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.

38Weak · 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://opensearch.org/llms.txt)
3.7/40Legible commit history7 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://opensearch.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.07
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-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
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/92 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes45,530
source_files_sampled92
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

6,721GitHub stars
100contributors
290commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
5open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 761 ⇿
0Stars
761Forks
100Releases

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.

012525037550062575073982013-072020-012026-08
Major 6Minor 24Patch 70

Each point covers 12 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 · 2026-08-28 03:50 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemsminitestGemfile
RubyGemssqlite3Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3-ffiGemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord~> 8.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsactionpack~> 8.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsactivejob~> 8.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemselasticsearch~> 9Gemfile
RubyGemsredis-clientGemfile
RubyGemsconnection_poolGemfile
RubyGemskaminariGemfile
RubyGemsgemoji-parserGemfile
RubyGemsparallel_testsGemfile
RubyGemstyphoeusGemfile
RubyGemscgiGemfile
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 13 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactionpackdirect
RubyGemsactivejobdirect
RubyGemsactiverecorddirect
RubyGemscgidirect
RubyGemsconnection_pooldirect
RubyGemselasticsearchdirect
RubyGemsgemoji-parserdirect
RubyGemskaminaridirect
RubyGemsminitestdirect
RubyGemsparallel_testsdirect
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsredis-clientdirect
RubyGemssqlite3direct
RubyGemssqlite3-ffidirect
RubyGemstyphoeusdirect
RubyGemsactivemodelindirect
RubyGemsallocation_statsindirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ipsindirect
RubyGemsget_process_memindirect
RubyGemsinformersindirect
RubyGemsjsonindirect
RubyGemsmemory_profilerindirect
RubyGemsojindirect
RubyGemsopensearch-rubyindirect
RubyGemspgindirect
RubyGemsredisindirect
RubyGemsruby-profindirect
RubyGemssidekiqindirect
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.