Public record
Software health reportschema 0.13.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 14:48 UTC

davishmcclurg / json_schemer

JSON Schema validator. Supports drafts 4, 6, 7, 2019-09, 2020-12, OpenAPI 3.0, and OpenAPI 3.1.

RubyMIT★ 473 stars⑂ 65 forkssince Jan 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#ruby#json-schema#json-validation

davishmcclurg/json_schemer holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 24 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

David HarshaPersonal account
20 followers36 public repossince Jun 2011

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 publishTags
npmjson-schema-test-suitepoints to another repo — not scored0.0.1067234014 days agojsonschematestsuite
RubyGemsjson_schemer2.5.0-49221 days ago—

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

46Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

38Weak
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 24 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
9/18Commit volume — 9 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_year9
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push24
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

58Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 49 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 221 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~101.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count49
latest_release_tagv2.5.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release221
mean_days_between_releases101.7
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?

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate
How it's scored
43.4/60Stars — 473 stars
15.1/25Forks — 65 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks65
stars473
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 73,525,933 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjson_schemer
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads73,525,933
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

32At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 21 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.864

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good
How it's scored
38/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
24.7/30PR acceptance — 84/102 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs84
open_issues12
closed_issues113
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.904
closed_unmerged_prs18
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.

Ownership & stewardship

54Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.5/25Owner reach — 20 followers of davishmcclurg
23.4/25Track record — 36 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindavishmcclurg
public_repos36
account_age_days5,504
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 221 days ago
20/20Version history — 49 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjson_schemer
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish221

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, json-schema, json-validation
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?

39Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak
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
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — 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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/69 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes53,341
source_files_sampled69
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

473GitHub stars
21contributors
9commits, last 12 months
24days since last push
49releases
1bus factor
12open issues
npm, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • npm package 'json-schema-test-suite' points at a different repository (git+https://github.com/atomiqio/json-schema-test-suite.git); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 14:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsbase640.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal—indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.9indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.5indirect
RubyGemscsv—indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemshana—indirect
RubyGemshana1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsi18n—indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.6indirect
RubyGemsi18n-debug—indirect
RubyGemsi18n-debug1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjruby-openssl0.15.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.4indirect
RubyGemsopenssl—indirect
RubyGemsopenssl3.3.2indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.2.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser—indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.10.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemssimpleidn—indirect
RubyGemssimpleidn0.2.3indirect
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 davishmcclurg/json_schemer. Read them side by side →

99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐Star us on GitHubExceptional98chatwoot/chatwootOpen-source live-chat, email support, omni-channel desk. An alternative to Intercom, Zendesk, Salesforce Service Cloud etc. 🔥💬Exceptional98open-telemetry/opentelemetry-ruby-contribContrib Packages for the OpenTelemetry Ruby API and SDK implementation.Exceptional98rails/railsRuby on RailsExceptional97primer/view_componentsViewComponents for the Primer Design SystemExceptional96Shopify/ruby-lspAn opinionated language server for RubyExceptional

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 v0.13.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — npm, RubyGems.