Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 01:49 UTC

dannnylo / rtesseract

Ruby library for working with the Tesseract OCR.

RubyMIT★ 881 stars⑂ 85 forkssince Aug 2010View on GitHub ↗

dannnylo/rtesseract holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (71/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 447 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Danilo Jeremias da SilvaPersonal account
54 followers35 public repossince Aug 2008

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
RubyGemsrtesseract3.1.4-46447 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 447 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push447
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases36 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 447 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~297 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv3.1.4
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release447
mean_days_between_releases297
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?

71Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.8/60Stars881 stars
16/25Forks85 forks
5/15Watchers9 watchers
Inputs used
forks85
stars881
watchers9
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
66.2/80Total downloads2,339,416 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrtesseract
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads2,339,416
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth22 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.717
How it's scored
39.3/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance41/49 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs41
open_issues3
closed_issues43
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.935
closed_unmerged_prs8
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.5/25Owner reach54 followers of dannnylo
23.3/25Track record35 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers54
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logindannnylo
public_repos35
account_age_days6,549
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 447 days ago
20/20Version history46 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrtesseract
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish447

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://rubygems.org/gems/rtesseract
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrtesseract, tesseract-ocr, hacktoberfest, tesseract, ruby
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://rubygems.org/gems/rtesseract
docs_sitehttp://rubygems.org/gems/rtesseract
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 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 14 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
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages13
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 13 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
15.1/40Legible commit history28 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.283
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 environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/17 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes3,203
source_files_sampled17
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

881GitHub stars
22contributors
0commits, last 12 months
447days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
3open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 881 ★ / 85 ⇿
881Stars
85Forks
36Releases

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.

02004006008001,00088184712010-082018-082026-07
Major 1Minor 6Patch 29

Each point covers 15 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 01:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
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
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 13 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.4.4indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.10.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.10.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.10.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.21.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura1.4.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.12.3indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov0.8.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 13 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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