Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 20:27 UTC

bolshakov / stoplight

:traffic_light: Traffic control for code.

RubyMIT★ 629 stars⑂ 70 forkssince Aug 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined
#circuit-breaker#distributed-systems#fault-tolerance#microservices#resilience

bolshakov/stoplight holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (64/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

92
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Tëma BolshakovPersonal account
49 followers138 public repossince Aug 2011

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
RubyGemsstoplightpoints to another repo — not scored5.8.3-484 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

97Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 399 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year399
human_commit_share0.84
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year48

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 47 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~35.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tagv6.0.0.rc3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases35.7
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?

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

66Good
How it's scored
45.4/60Stars — 629 stars
15.3/25Forks — 70 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks70
stars629
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code 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_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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 43 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled43
top_contributor_share0.478

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
36.6/42Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
24.9/30PR acceptance — 607/730 decided PRs merged
9.3/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs607
open_issues24
closed_issues163
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d35
prs_decided_30d41
issue_closed_ratio0.872
closed_unmerged_prs123
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d7

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.2/25Owner reach — 49 followers of bolshakov
25/25Track record — 138 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers49
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginbolshakov
public_repos138
account_age_days5,504
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://bolshakov.github.io/stoplight/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscircuit-breaker, distributed-systems, fault-tolerance, microservices, resilience
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://bolshakov.github.io/stoplight/
docs_sitehttp://bolshakov.github.io/stoplight/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

83Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

79Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
1.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 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 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.9
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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages115
unassessed_packages2
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 115 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

91Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://www.dragonflydb.io/llms.txt)
31.1/40Legible commit history — 49 of 84 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://www.dragonflydb.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.583
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,827

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

48Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 16 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.16

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 2/259 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes135,804
source_files_sampled259
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

629GitHub stars
43contributors
399commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
47releases
2bus factor
24open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • rubygems package 'stoplight' points at a different repository (https://github.com/orgsync/stoplight); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 70 ⇿
0Stars
70Forks
44Releases

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.

01325385063756992015-022020-112026-08
Major 4Minor 20Patch 20

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.9 / 10
7.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 20:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 7 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 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsredis—Gemfile
RubyGemssinatra—Gemfile
RubyGemssinatra-contrib—Gemfile
RubyGemspuma—Gemfile
All dependencies 117

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 113 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemspuma8.0.2direct
RubyGemsredis6.0.0direct
RubyGemssinatra4.2.1direct
RubyGemssinatra-contrib4.2.1direct
RubyGemsactionpack8.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsammeter1.1.7indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips2.15.1indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby—indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby-ext1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemscucumber11.1.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-ci-environment11.0.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-core16.2.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-cucumber-expressions19.0.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-gherkin39.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-html-formatter23.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-messages32.3.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-tag-expressions8.1.0indirect
RubyGemsdatabase_cleaner-core2.0.1indirect
RubyGemsdatabase_cleaner-redis2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.1.1indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.4indirect
RubyGemsfileutils1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslisten3.10.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2indirect
RubyGemsmemoist31.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.17.0indirect
RubyGemsmulti_test1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmustermann3.0.4indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.5indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.28.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.3.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrack-protection4.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrailties8.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrantly2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrdoc7.0.1indirect
RubyGemsredis-client0.30.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-prof2.0.5indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov1.1.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov0.9.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard1.56.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.9.0indirect
RubyGemssteep2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsstrscan3.1.8indirect
RubyGemssys-uname1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table4.0.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.4.0indirect
RubyGemstilt2.6.1indirect
RubyGemstimecop0.9.11indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemsyard0.9.45indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 115 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with bolshakov/stoplight. Read them side by side →

77klarlabs-studio/fortifyProduction-grade resilience for Go services calling LLMs and tools. Composable patterns — circuit breaker, retry, rate limit, timeout, bulkhead, fallback, hedge, adaptive concurrency, cost budget, stream timeout — with first-class OpenTelemetry, Prometheus, and slog observability. Zero core deps.Good86grelinfo/grelmicroGrelmicro is a lightweight framework/toolkit which is ideal for building async microservices in Python.Excellent75eridu-tech/eridu-tech-coreeridu-tech - The adapter-first, modular and framework agnostic backend platform for TypeScriptGood99App-vNext/PollyPolly is a .NET resilience and transient-fault-handling library that allows developers to express policies such as Retry, Circuit Breaker, Timeout, Bulkhead Isolation, and Fallback in a fluent and thread-safe manner. From version 6.0.1, Polly targets .NET Standard 1.1 and 2.0+.Exceptional97apache/dubboThe java implementation of Apache Dubbo. An RPC and microservice framework.Exceptional96encoredev/encoreThe infrastructure platform for the intelligence eraExceptional

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.