Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 02:02 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★ 520 stars⑂ 75 forkssince Feb 2009View on GitHub ↗

comma-csv/comma holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (57/100). It was last updated 22 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 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
RubyGemscomma5.1.0-4343 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 22 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18Commit volume — 57 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_year57
human_commit_share0.89
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 43 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~299.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv5.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release43
mean_days_between_releases299.4
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44/60Stars — 520 stars
15.6/25Forks — 75 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks75
stars520
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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
65.9/80Total downloads — 2,200,294 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescomma
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads2,200,294
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 27 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled27
top_contributor_share0.485
How it's scored
38.1/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
23/30PR acceptance — 92/120 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs92
open_issues6
closed_issues59
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.908
closed_unmerged_prs28
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
0/20Verified domain
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of comma-csv
14.2/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincomma-csv
public_repos1
account_age_days4,815

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 43 days ago
20/20Version history — 43 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescomma
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish43

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/comma-csv/comma
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 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_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 17 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
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 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.
How it's scored
14.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: sqlite3 2.9.5 (high 7.3)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages50
unassessed_packages15
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. 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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 70 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.787
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 environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 18 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 11 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
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.18
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.11
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/37 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes12,130
source_files_sampled37
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

520GitHub stars
27contributors
57commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
18releases
2bus factor
6open 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 · 2026-10-20 02:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 17 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
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemscoveralls—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.30.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3—Gemfile
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
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsappraisal—indirect
RubyGemsappraisal1.0.3indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal—indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemscgi—indirect
RubyGemscgi0.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscsv—indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.2.5indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsdrb—indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsjson2.7.1indirect
RubyGemslogger—indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m—indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsostruct—indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.24.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.0.4indirect
RubyGemsracc1.7.3indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-activemodel-mocks—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-activemodel-mocks1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-its—indirect
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 1

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: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 15 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
sqlite32.9.5directhigh12.9.6

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 statistics — RubyGems.