Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 11:01 UTC

cerbos / cerbos-sdk-ruby

Ruby SDK for authorization via Cerbos

RubyApache-2.0★ 8 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Apr 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

cerbos/cerbos-sdk-ruby holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CerbosOrganization
208 followers92 public repossince Mar 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscerbos0.14.0-160 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
31.8/36Commit cadence46/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume104 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year104
human_commit_share0.19
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year46
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases16 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~137.6 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases1 out of the last 1 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv0.14.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases137.6

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars8 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars8
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
50.2/80Total downloads68,433 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescerbos
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads68,433
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution75% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance346/362 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs346
open_issues1
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs16
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
16.7/25Owner reach208 followers of cerbos
23.8/25Track record92 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers208
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincerbos
public_repos92
account_age_days1,974
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history16 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescerbos
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsauthorization, cerbos, ruby
has_wikino
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?

86Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

83Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases1 out of the last 1 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate8.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages53
unassessed_packages3
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 53 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 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.

45Weak · 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 environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance72 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
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_share0.72
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
54.3/55Manageable file sizes1/82 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes73,456
source_files_sampled82
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)proto/authzen/authorization/v1/evaluation.proto, proto/authzen/authorization/v1/svc.proto, proto/buf/validate/validate.proto, proto/cerbos/audit/v1/audit.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/apikey/v1/apikey.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/auth/v1/auth.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/bundle/v2/bundle.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/epdp/v2/epdp.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/logs/v1/logs.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/pdp/v1/pdp.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/store/v1/store.proto, proto/cerbos/effect/v1/effect.proto, proto/cerbos/engine/v1/engine.proto, proto/cerbos/policy/v1/policy.proto, proto/cerbos/request/v1/request.proto, proto/cerbos/response/v1/response.proto, proto/cerbos/schema/v1/schema.proto, proto/cerbos/svc/v1/svc.proto, proto/cerbos/telemetry/v1/telemetry.proto, proto/google/api/annotations.proto, proto/google/api/expr/v1alpha1/checked.proto, proto/google/api/expr/v1alpha1/syntax.proto, proto/google/api/field_behavior.proto, proto/google/api/http.proto, proto/google/api/visibility.proto, proto/google/rpc/code.proto, proto/grpc/binlog/v1/binarylog.proto, proto/grpc/binlog/v1alpha/binarylog.proto, proto/grpc/channelz/v1/channelz.proto, proto/grpc/core/stats.proto, proto/grpc/examples/helloworld.proto, proto/grpc/gcp/altscontext.proto, proto/grpc/gcp/handshaker.proto, proto/grpc/gcp/transport_security_common.proto, proto/grpc/health/v1/health.proto, proto/grpc/lb/v1/load_balancer.proto, proto/grpc/lb/v1/load_reporter.proto, proto/grpc/lookup/v1/rls.proto, proto/grpc/lookup/v1/rls_config.proto, proto/grpc/reflection/v1/reflection.proto, proto/grpc/reflection/v1alpha/reflection.proto, proto/grpc/service_config/service_config.proto, proto/grpc/testing/benchmark_service.proto, proto/grpc/testing/control.proto, proto/grpc/testing/empty.proto, proto/grpc/testing/messages.proto, proto/grpc/testing/payloads.proto, proto/grpc/testing/report_qps_scenario_service.proto, proto/grpc/testing/stats.proto, proto/grpc/testing/test.proto, proto/grpc/testing/worker_service.proto, proto/grpc/testing/xdsconfig/xdsconfig.proto, proto/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/annotations.proto, proto/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/openapiv2.proto
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesproto/authzen/authorization/v1/evaluation.proto, proto/authzen/authorization/v1/svc.proto, proto/buf/validate/validate.proto, proto/cerbos/audit/v1/audit.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/apikey/v1/apikey.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/auth/v1/auth.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/bundle/v2/bundle.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/epdp/v2/epdp.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/logs/v1/logs.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/pdp/v1/pdp.proto, proto/cerbos/cloud/store/v1/store.proto, proto/cerbos/effect/v1/effect.proto, proto/cerbos/engine/v1/engine.proto, proto/cerbos/policy/v1/policy.proto, proto/cerbos/request/v1/request.proto, proto/cerbos/response/v1/response.proto, proto/cerbos/schema/v1/schema.proto, proto/cerbos/svc/v1/svc.proto, proto/cerbos/telemetry/v1/telemetry.proto, proto/google/api/annotations.proto, proto/google/api/expr/v1alpha1/checked.proto, proto/google/api/expr/v1alpha1/syntax.proto, proto/google/api/field_behavior.proto, proto/google/api/http.proto, proto/google/api/visibility.proto, proto/google/rpc/code.proto, proto/grpc/binlog/v1/binarylog.proto, proto/grpc/binlog/v1alpha/binarylog.proto, proto/grpc/channelz/v1/channelz.proto, proto/grpc/core/stats.proto, proto/grpc/examples/helloworld.proto, proto/grpc/gcp/altscontext.proto, proto/grpc/gcp/handshaker.proto, proto/grpc/gcp/transport_security_common.proto, proto/grpc/health/v1/health.proto, proto/grpc/lb/v1/load_balancer.proto, proto/grpc/lb/v1/load_reporter.proto, proto/grpc/lookup/v1/rls.proto, proto/grpc/lookup/v1/rls_config.proto, proto/grpc/reflection/v1/reflection.proto, proto/grpc/reflection/v1alpha/reflection.proto, proto/grpc/service_config/service_config.proto, proto/grpc/testing/benchmark_service.proto, proto/grpc/testing/control.proto, proto/grpc/testing/empty.proto, proto/grpc/testing/messages.proto, proto/grpc/testing/payloads.proto, proto/grpc/testing/report_qps_scenario_service.proto, proto/grpc/testing/stats.proto, proto/grpc/testing/test.proto, proto/grpc/testing/worker_service.proto, proto/grpc/testing/xdsconfig/xdsconfig.proto, proto/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/annotations.proto, proto/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/openapiv2.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

8GitHub stars
1contributors
104commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
11Releases

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.

12233312022-052023-062024-07
Major 0Minor 9Patch 2

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.3 / 10
8.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 11:01 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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
8Signed-Releases1 out of the last 1 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsopensslGemfile
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemscommonmarkerGemfile
RubyGemswebrickGemfile
RubyGemsyardGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rakeGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecGemfile
RubyGemsstandardGemfile
RubyGemsparallelGemfile
All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 47 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemscommonmarker2.9.0direct
RubyGemsopenssl4.0.2direct
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0direct
RubyGemsrake13.4.2direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2direct
RubyGemsstandard1.56.0direct
RubyGemswebrick1.9.2direct
RubyGemsyard0.9.45direct
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-rubyindirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdotenv3.2.0indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.7indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-protobufindirect
RubyGemsgoogle-protobuf4.35.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogleapis-common-protos-types1.23.0indirect
RubyGemsgrpcindirect
RubyGemsgrpc1.83.0indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.2.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake-compiler-dock1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrb_sys0.9.128indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip3.4.1indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.9.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 53 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 3 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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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