Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 18:41 UTC

coorasse / passkit

Wallet Pass generation for Ruby On Rails

Ruby · HTMLMIT★ 125 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Sep 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolNetwork servicehow this is determined

coorasse/passkit holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (68/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Alessandro RodiPersonal account
195 followers156 public repossince Jan 2012@renuo

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemspasskit0.8.1-200 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume6 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share0.981
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 11 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~239.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tag0.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases239.2
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34/60Stars125 stars
12.7/25Forks34 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks34
stars125
watchers5
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58.2/80Total downloads402,935 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespasskit
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads402,935
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 61% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth11 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.608
How it's scored
36.4/42Issue resolution87% of issues closed
24.6/30PR acceptance23/28 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance4/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 17/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs23
open_issues2
closed_issues13
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.867
closed_unmerged_prs5
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
16.5/25Owner reach195 followers of coorasse
25/25Track record156 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers195
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logincoorasse
public_repos156
account_age_days5,365
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 history20 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespasskit
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspasskit, wallet-pass
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 17/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories61
affected_packages8
assessed_packages19
unassessed_packages11
affected_by_severityhigh 5, moderate 2, low 1
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 19 resolved dependencies against OSV. 11 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.6/40Legible commit history24 of 52 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.462
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 53
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 53 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.019
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/65 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes6,252
source_files_sampled65
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

125GitHub stars
11contributors
6commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 34 ⇿
0Stars
34Forks
7Releases

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.

01325383322022-102024-092026-09
Major 0Minor 6Patch 1

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 18:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 17/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrake~> 13.0Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest~> 5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsstandard~> 1.3Gemfile
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsminitestdirect
RubyGemsminitest5.22.3direct
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsstandarddirect
RubyGemsactionpack7.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsactionview7.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.2.4indirect
RubyGemscapybaraindirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.2.3indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsdotenvindirect
RubyGemserubi1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.4indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.22.0indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.16.3indirect
RubyGemsracc1.7.3indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.9indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrailsindirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzipindirect
RubyGemsselenium-webdriverindirect
RubyGemssprockets4.1.1indirect
RubyGemssprockets-railsindirect
RubyGemssprockets-rails3.4.2indirect
RubyGemssqlite3indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemswebrickindirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 19 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 11 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
actionpack7.0.4.1indirecthigh68.0.0.1
activesupport7.0.4.1indirecthigh58.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.2.3indirecthigh31.3.7
nokogiri1.16.3indirecthigh161.19.4
rack2.2.9indirecthigh223.2.6
actionview7.0.4.1indirectmoderate28.1.2.1
loofah2.22.0indirectmoderate12.25.2
rails-html-sanitizer1.6.0indirectlow61.7.1

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.