Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 19:42 UTC

chef / ohai

Ohai profiles your system and emits JSON

RubyApache-2.0★ 689 stars⑂ 446 forksgrowth anomalysince Jan 2009View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

chef/ohai holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (55/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 3 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

Progress ChefOrganization · verified domain
407 followers178 public repossince Oct 2008

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsohai19.1.40-20080 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 101 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year101
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year29
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,874 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~35.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv8.10.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,874
mean_days_between_releases35.2
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
27.6/60Stars — 689 stars, discounted for inorganic growth: 151 stars over 1 day(s) from 2009-01-15, 151× the repository's own daily baseline
13.2/25Forks — 446 forks, discounted for inorganic growth: 151 stars over 1 day(s) from 2009-01-15, 151× the repository's own daily baseline
10.4/15Watchers — 76 watchers
Inputs used
forks446
stars689
watchers76
growth_stateanomalous
growth_signalsacquisition_burst, fork_divergence, missing_decay
growth_windows2009-01-15/2009-01-15
growth_peak_days1
growth_factor_pct60
growth_peak_stars151
growth_peak_window2009-01-15
growth_peak_multiple151
growth_top_days_share0.235
growth_baseline_per_day1
growth_history_completeyes
Inorganic Growth Policy discounts the stars and forks components by 40%. The finding describes the timing of public star and fork events; it does not establish that attention was purchased, or that the maintainers were involved.

Community health

100Exceptional
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 75,229,620 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesohai
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads75,229,620
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?

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 50 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.357
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
22.9/30PR acceptance — 1,212/1,590 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs1,212
open_issues66
closed_issues313
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs378
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
18.8/25Owner reach — 407 followers of chef
25/25Track record — 178 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers407
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginchef
public_repos178
account_age_days6,537

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 80 days ago
20/20Version history — 200 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesohai
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish80

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.chef.io/ohai.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsohai, ruby, chef, configuration-management, configuration, discovery, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.chef.io/ohai.html
docs_sitehttps://docs.chef.io/ohai.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

76Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 11/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 50 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.4/40Legible commit history — 45 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.495
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,788
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 7 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 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_share0.07
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.3/55Manageable file sizes — 4/329 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes150,359
source_files_sampled329
oversized_source_files4
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

689GitHub stars
99contributors
101commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
9releases
3bus factor
66open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-06: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 689 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 690 ★ / 446 ⇿
690Stars
446Forks
9Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-06. 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.

The shaded band marks the burst the Inorganic Growth Policy confirmed. How growth authenticity is assessed

01252503755006257506904331572009-012017-102026-08
Major 0Minor 8Patch 1

Each point covers 17 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10
7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 19:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 11/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 50 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappbundler—Gemfile
RubyGemschef-config—Gemfile
RubyGemschef-utils—Gemfile
RubyGemsffi~> 1.17Gemfile
RubyGemscookstyle>= 7.32.8Gemfile
RubyGemspry—Gemfile
RubyGemspry-byebug—Gemfile
RubyGemspry-stack_explorer—Gemfile
RubyGemsrb-readline—Gemfile
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 15 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappbundler—direct
RubyGemschef-config—direct
RubyGemschef-utils—direct
RubyGemscookstyle—direct
RubyGemsffi—direct
RubyGemspry—direct
RubyGemspry-byebug—direct
RubyGemspry-stack_explorer—direct
RubyGemsrb-readline—direct
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsipaddr_extensions—indirect
RubyGemsipaddress—indirect
RubyGemsmixlib-cli—indirect
RubyGemsmixlib-config—indirect
RubyGemsmixlib-log—indirect
RubyGemsmixlib-shellout—indirect
RubyGemsplist—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-collection_matchers—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks—indirect
RubyGemstrain-core—indirect
RubyGemswmi-lite—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.