Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 22:01 UTC

basecamp / kamal

Deploy web apps anywhere.

RubyMIT★ 14,536 stars⑂ 748 forkssince Jan 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

basecamp/kamal holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (49/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

37signalsOrganization · verified domain
3,171 followers244 public repossince Jun 2008

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemskamal2.12.0-5570 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
26.3/36Commit cadence — 38/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 226 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year226
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year38

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 72 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 70 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~40.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count72
latest_release_tagv2.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release70
mean_days_between_releases40.5
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?

92Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 14,536 stars
23.9/25Forks — 748 forks
11/15Watchers — 98 watchers
Inputs used
forks748
stars14,536
watchers98
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
76.7/80Total downloads — 24,032,244 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageskamal
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads24,032,244
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 44 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.465
How it's scored
37.5/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance — 593/754 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs593
open_issues76
closed_issues625
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.892
closed_unmerged_prs161
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,171 followers of basecamp
25/25Track record — 244 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,171
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginbasecamp
public_repos244
account_age_days6,653

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 70 days ago
20/20Version history — 55 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageskamal
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish70

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://kamal-deploy.org
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://kamal-deploy.org
docs_sitehttps://kamal-deploy.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 44 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
2.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories12
affected_packages3
assessed_packages70
unassessed_packages14
affected_by_severitymoderate 2, low 1
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 70 resolved dependencies against OSV. 14 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 74 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.779
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/173 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes40,159
source_files_sampled173
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

14,536GitHub stars
99contributors
226commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
72releases
2bus factor
76open 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 ★ / 748 ⇿
0Stars
748Forks
72Releases

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.

0125250375500625750737422023-012024-102026-08
Major 2Minor 29Patch 36

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 22:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 44 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrubocop-rails-omakase—Gemfile
All dependencies 84

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 83 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsrubocop-rails-omakase1.1.0direct
RubyGemsactionpack8.1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbcrypt_pbkdf—indirect
RubyGemsbcrypt_pbkdf1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby—indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdebug—indirect
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1indirect
RubyGemsdotenv—indirect
RubyGemsdotenv3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsed25519—indirect
RubyGemsed255191.4.0indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.1.1indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.0indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.9indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.1indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmocha—indirect
RubyGemsmocha3.0.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-scp4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-sftp4.0.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-ssh—indirect
RubyGemsnet-ssh7.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.3indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.10.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.7.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.3.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsrailties—indirect
RubyGemsrailties8.1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrdoc7.0.3indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.82.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails2.34.3indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssshkit—indirect
RubyGemssshkit1.25.0indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsthor—indirect
RubyGemsthor1.4.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.7.4indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 70 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 14 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
loofah2.25.1indirectmoderate32.25.2
nokogiri1.19.3indirectmoderate81.19.4
rails-html-sanitizer1.6.2indirectlow11.7.1

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 — RubyGems.