Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 19:29 UTC

copiousfreetime / launchy

A helper for launching cross-platform applications in a fire and forget manner.

RubyISC★ 798 stars⑂ 60 forkssince Jun 2008View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

copiousfreetime/launchy holds a health index of 37 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (77/100) and lowest on Vitality (13/100). It was last updated 568 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

37
overall / 100
Weak

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.

37
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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jeremy HinegardnerPersonal account
198 followers117 public repossince May 2008Copious Free Time, LLC

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
RubyGemslaunchy3.1.1-45568 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

13Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 568 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push568
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 35 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 568 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~457.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tagv3.1.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release568
mean_days_between_releases457.6
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?

77Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.1/60Stars — 798 stars
14.8/25Forks — 60 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks60
stars798
watchers11
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (ISC)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 298,941,841 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslaunchy
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads298,941,841
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.959
How it's scored
41/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
17/30PR acceptance — 25/44 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs25
open_issues3
closed_issues120
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.976
closed_unmerged_prs19
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.5/25Owner reach — 198 followers of copiousfreetime
25/25Track record — 117 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers198
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logincopiousfreetime
public_repos117
account_age_days6,686
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 568 days ago
20/20Version history — 45 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaunchy
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish568

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/copiousfreetime/launchy
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaunchy, ruby, commandline, browser
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/copiousfreetime/launchy
docs_sitehttps://github.com/copiousfreetime/launchy
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
3/7.5Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories6
affected_packages4
assessed_packages49
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 1, 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 49 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4.8/40Legible commit history — 9 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.09
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
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
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/25 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes5,842
source_files_sampled25
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

798GitHub stars
16contributors
0commits, last 12 months
568days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
3open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-06-16: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 798 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 797 ★ / 60 ⇿
797Stars
60Forks
35Releases

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 2026-06-16. 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.

020040060080079760332008-062017-072026-08
Major 3Minor 9Patch 23

Each point covers 17 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.2 / 10
2.2aggregate

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 19:29 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
4Vulnerabilities6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsminitest~> 5.11Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-focus~> 1.2Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-junit~> 1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc~> 6.3Gemfile
RubyGemsreek—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.63Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest~> 0.35Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging~> 0.5Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-performance~> 1.21Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rake~> 0.6Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-thread_safety~> 0.6Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-md~> 1.2Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov~> 0.22Gemfile
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsminitest5.25.4direct
RubyGemsminitest-focus1.4.0direct
RubyGemsminitest-junit1.1.0direct
RubyGemsrake13.2.1direct
RubyGemsrdoc6.11.0direct
RubyGemsreek6.4.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.71.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-md1.2.4direct
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest0.36.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging0.5.2direct
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.23.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.6.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-thread_safety0.6.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.7indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.9indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemschildprocess5.1.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdate3.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdry-configurable1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-core1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-inflector1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-initializer3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-logic1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-schema1.13.4indirect
RubyGemsdry-types1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsjar-dependencies0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.9.1indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.3indirect
RubyGemslogger1.6.5indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.26.3indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.7.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.2.3indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix6.0.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.37.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.1.2indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.0.4indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.6.18indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 49 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
addressable2.8.7indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.3.5indirecthigh31.3.7
rexml3.4.0indirectmoderate13.4.2
json2.9.1indirectlow12.19.9

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.