Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 15:08 UTC

bannable / paseto

Ruby implementation of PASETO tokens

RubyMIT★ 22 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Nov 2022View on GitHub ↗

bannable/paseto holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (70/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Joe TrubaPersonal account
13 followers25 public repossince Apr 2012

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
RubyGemsruby-paseto0.2.0-4461 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

54Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume18 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases4 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 461 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~252.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv0.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release461
mean_days_between_releases252.8
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.4/60Stars22 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars22
watchers2
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
64.8/80Total downloads1,718,064 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesruby-paseto
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads1,718,064
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?

50Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 76% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.756
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
16.2/30PR acceptance138/256 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs138
open_issues0
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs118
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
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
8.2/25Owner reach13 followers of bannable
22.3/25Track record25 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginbannable
public_repos25
account_age_days5,203
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 461 days ago
12/20Version history4 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesruby-paseto
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish461

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests17 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsencryption, libsodium, paseto, ruby, security, signature, token
has_wikiyes
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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests17 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
2.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: oj 3.17.0 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories14
affected_packages2
assessed_packages78
unassessed_packages4
affected_by_severityhigh 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 78 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/101 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes18,478
source_files_sampled101
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

22GitHub stars
5contributors
18commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 15:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
6CI-Tests17 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsojGemfile
RubyGemsparallel_testsGemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 13Gemfile
RubyGemsreekGemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatterGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.75Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-performance~> 1.25Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec~> 3.5Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-sorbet~> 0.10Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov~> 0Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatterGemfile
RubyGemssorbet~> 0Gemfile
RubyGemstimecop~> 0Gemfile
All dependencies 82

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsoj3.17.0direct
RubyGemsparallel_tests5.7.0direct
RubyGemsrake13.4.2direct
RubyGemsreek6.5.0direct
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2direct
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter0.6.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.86.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.9.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-sorbet0.12.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4direct
RubyGemssorbet0.6.13160direct
RubyGemstimecop0.9.11direct
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander5.0.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.6indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-configurable1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-core1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-inflector1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsdry-initializer3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-logic1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-schema1.16.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-types1.9.1indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.4indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemshighline3.0.1indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.17.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.3indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmulti_jsonindirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.20.1indirect
RubyGemsnetrc0.11.0indirect
RubyGemsopensslindirect
RubyGemsopenssl4.0.1indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparlour9.1.2indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.3.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrbi0.3.10indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrdoc7.2.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrequire-hooks0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrubydex0.1.0.beta13indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.12.3indirect
RubyGemssorbet-runtimeindirect
RubyGemssorbet-runtime0.6.13160indirect
RubyGemssorbet-static0.6.13160indirect
RubyGemssorbet-static-and-runtime0.6.13160indirect
RubyGemsspoom1.7.13indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemstapioca0.19.1indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemszeitwerkindirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.7.5indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 78 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
oj3.17.0directhigh113.17.3
concurrent-ruby1.3.6indirecthigh31.3.7

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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