Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 04:40 UTC

ddollar / foreman

Manage Procfile-based applications

RubyMIT★ 6,156 stars⑂ 627 forkssince May 2010View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

ddollar/foreman holds a health index of 30 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (80/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 396 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

30
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

30
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

David DollarPersonal account
998 followers274 public repossince Mar 2008@epiphytelabs

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
RubyGemsforeman0.90.0-180396 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 396 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_share1
days_since_last_push396
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases90 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 396 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~288.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count90
latest_release_tagv0.90.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release396
mean_days_between_releases288.4
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?

80Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars6,156 stars
23.3/25Forks627 forks
10.7/15Watchers85 watchers
Inputs used
forks627
stars6,156
watchers85
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads132,033,756 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesforeman
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads132,033,756
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 78% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.782
How it's scored
37/42Issue resolution88% of issues closed
16.9/30PR acceptance198/352 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs198
open_issues53
closed_issues389
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.88
closed_unmerged_prs154
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
21.6/25Owner reach998 followers of ddollar
25/25Track record274 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers998
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginddollar
public_repos274
account_age_days6,737
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 396 days ago
20/20Version history180 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesforeman
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish396

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://ddollar.github.com/foreman
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://ddollar.github.com/foreman
docs_sitehttp://ddollar.github.com/foreman
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 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
0.2/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.2
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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history30 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.3
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
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
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_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/38 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes12,248
source_files_sampled38
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

6,156GitHub stars
100contributors
0commits, last 12 months
396days since last push
90releases
1bus factor
53open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-16: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 6156 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 6,156 ★ / 627 ⇿
6,156Stars
627Forks
90Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-16. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

01,2502,5003,7505,0006,2506,156592162010-052018-062026-07
Major 0Minor 73Patch 17

Each point covers 15 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 04:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1CI-Tests1 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 8/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsautomatiekindirect
RubyGemsaws-s3indirect
RubyGemsfakefsindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsronn-ngindirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemsthorindirect
RubyGemstimecopindirect
RubyGemsyardindirect
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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