Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-08 20:15 UTC

danmayer / coverband

Ruby production code coverage collection and reporting (line of code usage)

RubyMIT★ 2,686 stars⑂ 169 forkssince Nov 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolNetwork servicehow this is determined

danmayer/coverband holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (86/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Dan MayerPersonal account
164 followers95 public repossince Sep 2008@VantaInc

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
RubyGemscoverband6.2.2-1530 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
18/36Commit cadence26/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume154 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year154
human_commit_share0.74
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 123 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~225.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv6.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release123
mean_days_between_releases225.3
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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.6/60Stars2,686 stars
18.5/25Forks169 forks
6.2/15Watchers14 watchers
Inputs used
forks169
stars2,686
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesapi.codeclimate.com, coveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
78/80Total downloads31,930,561 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescoverband
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads31,930,561
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
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth66 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled66
top_contributor_share0.549
How it's scored
41.8/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
26/30PR acceptance335/386 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs335
open_issues1
closed_issues262
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.996
closed_unmerged_prs51
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
15.9/25Owner reach164 followers of danmayer
25/25Track record95 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers164
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logindanmayer
public_repos95
account_age_days6,534
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 history153 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescoverband
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
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 sitehttps://github.com/danmayer/coverband
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscoverband, ruby, coverage-report, coverage-data, rack-middleware, rails
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/danmayer/coverband
docs_sitehttps://github.com/danmayer/coverband
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsagents.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
39.6/40Legible commit history55 of 74 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.743
agent_instruction_filesagents.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,742
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice36 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.36
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes1/164 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes214,058
source_files_sampled164
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

2,686GitHub stars
66contributors
154commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 169 ⇿
0Stars
169Forks
13Releases

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.

0408012016020016632013-122020-042026-08
Major 1Minor 1Patch 11

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 20:15 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
5CI-Tests3 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrailsGemfile
RubyGemshamlGemfile
RubyGemsslimGemfile
RubyGemswebrickGemfile
RubyGemscgiGemfile
All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemscgidirect
RubyGemshamldirect
RubyGemsrailsdirect
RubyGemsslimdirect
RubyGemswebrickdirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbenchmarkindirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ipsindirect
RubyGemscapybaraindirect
RubyGemscoverallsindirect
RubyGemsdalliindirect
RubyGemsmindirect
RubyGemsmcpindirect
RubyGemsmemory_profilerindirect
RubyGemsminitestindirect
RubyGemsminitest-fork_executorindirect
RubyGemsminitest-stub-constindirect
RubyGemsmochaindirect
RubyGemsrackindirect
RubyGemsrack-testindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsredisindirect
RubyGemsresqueindirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsspyindirect
RubyGemsstandardindirect
RubyGemswebmockindirect
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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.