Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 04:10 UTC

comma-csv / comma

Comma is a small CSV (ie. comma separated values) generation extension for Ruby objects, that lets you seamlessly define a CSV output format via a small DSL

RubyMIT★ 518 stars⑂ 75 forkssince Feb 2009View on GitHub ↗

comma-csv/comma holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (77/100) and lowest on Security (62/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

81
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.

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

Ownership

comma-csvOrganization
0 followers1 public reposince Aug 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscomma5.0.0-420 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume25 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share0.86
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases17 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~297.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv5.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases297.7
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44/60Stars518 stars
15.6/25Forks75 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks75
stars518
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
65.8/80Total downloads2,148,964 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescomma
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads2,148,964
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?

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth28 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled28
top_contributor_share0.44
How it's scored
34.6/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
22.6/30PR acceptance82/109 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs82
open_issues11
closed_issues51
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.823
closed_unmerged_prs27
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
0/25Owner reach0 followers of comma-csv
14.2/25Track record1 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincomma-csv
public_repos1
account_age_days4,756
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 history42 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescomma
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
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 sitehttps://github.com/comma-csv/comma
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, csv
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/comma-csv/comma
docs_sitehttps://github.com/comma-csv/comma
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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_packages50
unassessed_packages15
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 50 resolved dependencies against OSV. 15 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
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
29.1/40Legible commit history47 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.547
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,605
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
8/10Demonstrated agent practice4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.14
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/27 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes10,343
source_files_sampled27
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

518GitHub stars
28contributors
25commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
17releases
2bus factor
11open 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 ★ / 75 ⇿
0Stars
75Forks
15Releases

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.

01325385063756652009-032016-102024-05
Major 1Minor 8Patch 6

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 04:09 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 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
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
RubyGemscoverallsGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.30.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-performanceGemfile
RubyGemssqlite3Gemfile
All dependencies 65

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 61 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemscoveralls0.8.23direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.30.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.10.2direct
RubyGemssqlite32.9.5direct
RubyGemsactivemodel7.2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupportindirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsappraisalindirect
RubyGemsappraisal1.0.3indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmarkindirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimalindirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemscgiindirect
RubyGemscgi0.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscsvindirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.2.5indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsdrbindirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsjson2.7.1indirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmutex_mindirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsostructindirect
RubyGemsostruct0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.24.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.0.4indirect
RubyGemsracc1.7.3indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-activemodel-mocksindirect
RubyGemsrspec-activemodel-mocks1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-itsindirect
RubyGemsrspec-its1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.30.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.16.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.10.2indirect
RubyGemssync0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsterm-ansicolor1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsthor1.3.0indirect
RubyGemstins1.32.1indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.5.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 50 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 15 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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