Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 01:13 UTC

crmne / ruby_llm

The Ruby AI framework.

RubyMIT★ 4,474 stars⑂ 516 forkssince Jan 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#llm#ruby#ai#anthropic#embeddings#gemini#openai#rails#ollama#agents#ai-framework#multimodal#rag#structured-output#tool-calling#agent-framework#agentic-ai#ai-agents#generative-ai#large-language-models

crmne/ruby_llm holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on Security (53/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Carmine PaolinoPersonal account
790 followers147 public repossince Jul 2009@plenty-hq

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
RubyGemsruby_llm2.1.1-948 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

92Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
27.7/36Commit cadence — 40/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,371 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,371
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year40

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 46 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~21.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv2.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases21.4

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

86Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

90Excellent
How it's scored
59.2/60Stars — 4,474 stars
22.6/25Forks — 516 forks
8.3/15Watchers — 32 watchers
Inputs used
forks516
stars4,474
watchers32
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, codecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

93Exceptional
How it's scored
74.4/80Total downloads — 14,593,296 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesruby_llm
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads14,593,296
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.845

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
17.8/30PR acceptance — 388/653 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs388
open_issues3
closed_issues470
prs_merged_7d55
prs_decided_7d60
prs_merged_30d55
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.994
closed_unmerged_prs265
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.

Ownership & stewardship

70Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20.8/25Owner reach — 790 followers of crmne
25/25Track record — 147 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers790
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logincrmne
public_repos147
account_age_days6,301
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 94 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesruby_llm
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 11 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://rubyllm.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsllm, ruby, ai, anthropic, embeddings, gemini, openai, rails, ollama, agents, ai-framework, multimodal, rag, structured-output, tool-calling, agent-framework, agentic-ai, ai-agents, generative-ai, large-language-models
has_wikino
homepagehttps://rubyllm.com/
docs_sitehttps://rubyllm.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.3

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

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, docs/_advanced/agents.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://rubyllm.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://rubyllm.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, docs/_advanced/agents.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes28,263

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — mise.toml
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesmise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 3/1,027 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes141,261
source_files_sampled1,027
oversized_source_files3

Machine-readable interfaces

33At Risk
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

4,474GitHub stars
100contributors
1,371commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
46releases
1bus factor
3open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 516 ⇿
0Stars
516Forks
45Releases

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.

0100200300400500600506242025-032025-122026-10
Major 2Minor 17Patch 19

Each point covers 2 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 01:13 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 62 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapter—indirect
RubyGemsappraisal—indirect
RubyGemsasync—indirect
RubyGemsasync-http-faraday—indirect
RubyGemsavro—indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream—indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s3—indirect
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemscolorize—indirect
RubyGemsdotenv—indirect
RubyGemsevent_stream_parser—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http_persistent—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry—indirect
RubyGemsferrum—indirect
RubyGemsflay—indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage—indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth—indirect
RubyGemsimage_processing—indirect
RubyGemsirb—indirect
RubyGemsjdbc-sqlite3—indirect
RubyGemsjekyll—indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-redirect-from—indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-remote-theme—indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag—indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-vitepress-theme—indirect
RubyGemsjson—indirect
RubyGemsjson_schemer—indirect
RubyGemsjust-the-docs—indirect
RubyGemsmarcel—indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsmxc—indirect
RubyGemsnet-http-persistent—indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri—indirect
RubyGemsopentelemetry-sdk—indirect
RubyGemsovercommit—indirect
RubyGemspry—indirect
RubyGemsrails—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrdoc—indirect
RubyGemsreline—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsruby-vips—indirect
RubyGemsruby_llm—indirect
RubyGemsschematist—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura—indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—indirect
RubyGemsstrong_migrations—indirect
RubyGemstest-queue—indirect
RubyGemsturbo-rails—indirect
RubyGemsvcr—indirect
RubyGemswebmock—indirect
RubyGemswebrick—indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with crmne/ruby_llm. Read them side by side →

100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional98langchain-ai/langchainThe agent engineering platform.Exceptional97strands-agents/harness-sdkBuild an agent harness and control it end-to-end. Open-source SDK for production AI agents in Python & TypeScript - any model, any cloud.Exceptional96TanStack/ai🤖 Type-safe, provider-agnostic TypeScript AI SDK for streaming chat, tool calling, agents, and multimodal apps across OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, React, Vue, Svelte, and Solid.Exceptional98langchain-ai/langgraphBuild resilient agents.Exceptional98strands-agents/toolsA set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.Exceptional

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.