Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 01:36 UTC

carrierwaveuploader / carrierwave

Classier solution for file uploads for Rails, Sinatra and other Ruby web frameworks

RubyNo license detected★ 8,779 stars⑂ 1,650 forkssince Aug 2008View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

carrierwaveuploader/carrierwave holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

78
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.

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

Ownership

CarrierWaveOrganization
10 followers7 public repossince Mar 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscarrierwave3.1.3-8896 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume — 17 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year17
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 39 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 501 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~44.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count39
latest_release_tagv3.1.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release501
mean_days_between_releases44.4
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?

80Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 8,779 stars
25/25Forks — 1,650 forks
11.7/15Watchers — 128 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,650
stars8,779
watchers128
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 141,264,727 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescarrierwave
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads141,264,727
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?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 96 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.259
How it's scored
40.8/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
20/30PR acceptance — 600/902 decided PRs merged
1.9/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs600
open_issues53
closed_issues1,854
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d7
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d8
issue_closed_ratio0.972
closed_unmerged_prs302
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
7.5/25Owner reach — 10 followers of carrierwaveuploader
18.6/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers10
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincarrierwaveuploader
public_repos7
account_age_days4,901

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 96 days ago
20/20Version history — 88 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescarrierwave
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish96

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 11 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://github.com/carrierwaveuploader/carrierwave
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/carrierwaveuploader/carrierwave
docs_sitehttps://github.com/carrierwaveuploader/carrierwave
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 11 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 96 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
0/2.5License — license file not detected
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.3/40Legible commit history — 46 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.474
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
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 1/93 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes78,849
source_files_sampled93
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

8,779GitHub stars
99contributors
17commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
39releases
3bus factor
53open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-17: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 8779 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 8,783 ★ / 1,650 ⇿
8,783Stars
1,650Forks
31Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-17. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,0008,7831,650222014-062020-072026-08
Major 2Minor 3Patch 21

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 01:35 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
5CI-Tests6 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 8/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 96 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrails>= 7.0.0Gemfile
RubyGemsactivemodel-serializers-xml—Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3—Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapter—Gemfile
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 21 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivemodel-serializers-xml—direct
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapter—direct
RubyGemsrails—direct
RubyGemssqlite3—direct
RubyGemsactivemodel—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsaddressable—indirect
RubyGemscsv—indirect
RubyGemscucumber—indirect
RubyGemsfog-aws—indirect
RubyGemsfog-google—indirect
RubyGemsfog-local—indirect
RubyGemsgenerator_spec—indirect
RubyGemsimage_processing—indirect
RubyGemsmarcel—indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick—indirect
RubyGemspry—indirect
RubyGemspry-byebug—indirect
RubyGemsrmagick—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-retry—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsssrf_filter—indirect
RubyGemstimecop—indirect
RubyGemswebmock—indirect
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 statistics — RubyGems.