Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 22:43 UTC

daddyz / phonelib

Ruby gem for phone validation and formatting using google libphonenumber library data

RubyMIT★ 1,165 stars⑂ 142 forkssince Oct 2012View on GitHub ↗

daddyz/phonelib holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

Vadim SenderovichPersonal account
13 followers21 public repossince Jan 2012

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
RubyGemsphonelib0.10.27-14716 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 16 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18Commit volume — 71 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_year71
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push16
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 89 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 16 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count89
latest_release_tagv0.10.27
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases16
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
49.7/60Stars — 1,165 stars
17.9/25Forks — 142 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks142
stars1,165
watchers13
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, circleci.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 79,334,867 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesphonelib
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads79,334,867
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 81% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 57 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled57
top_contributor_share0.812
How it's scored
40.9/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
20.7/30PR acceptance — 91/132 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs91
open_issues6
closed_issues227
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.974
closed_unmerged_prs41
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8.2/25Owner reach — 13 followers of daddyz
21.8/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindaddyz
public_repos21
account_age_days5,345
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 16 days ago
20/20Version history — 147 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesphonelib
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, google-libphonenumber, phone-validation, phone-parse, phone-number, parsing
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 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
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
13.2/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: nokogiri 1.15.4 (high 7.8)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.5/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 949 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories40
affected_packages2
assessed_packages23
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severityhigh 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 23 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16.5/40Legible commit history — 31 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.31
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 environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.05
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 — 0/61 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes56,295
source_files_sampled61
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,165GitHub stars
57contributors
71commits, last 12 months
16days since last push
89releases
1bus 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 ★ / 142 ⇿
0Stars
142Forks
86Releases

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.

025507510012515014142013-062020-012026-08
Major 0Minor 3Patch 83

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 22:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
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
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0Vulnerabilities40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 26
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemspry—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake< 14.0Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.8.2Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.16Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.15Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.10Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec= 2.14.1Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov—Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-memory—Gemfile
RubyGemsrack-cache= 1.2Gemfile
RubyGemsjson= 2.3.1Gemfile
RubyGemspry—gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsrake< 14.0gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.8.2gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.16gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.15gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.10gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec—gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec= 3.10.0gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov—gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-memory—gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsrack-cache= 1.2gemfiles/Gemfile
RubyGemsjson= 2.3.1gemfiles/Gemfile
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 13 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips2.12.0direct
RubyGemsbenchmark-memory—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark-memory0.2.0direct
RubyGemsjson2.3.1direct
RubyGemsnokogiri—direct
RubyGemsnokogiri1.15.4direct
RubyGemspry—direct
RubyGemspry0.11.3direct
RubyGemsrack-cache1.2direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrake13.0.1direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrspec2.14.1direct
RubyGemsrspec3.10.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov—direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemscoderay1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.2.5indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsmemory_profiler1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source0.9.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.4indirect
RubyGemsracc1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.0.7indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core2.14.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations2.14.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks2.14.6indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.12.3indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 23 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
nokogiri1.15.4directhigh171.19.4
rack3.0.7indirecthigh233.2.6

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.