Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 05:41 UTC

doorkeeper-gem / doorkeeper

Doorkeeper is an OAuth 2 provider for Ruby on Rails / Grape.

RubyMIT★ 5,521 stars⑂ 1,078 forkssince Nov 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginNetwork servicehow this is determined

doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (98/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (70/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

95
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

doorkeeper gemOrganization
20 followers11 public repossince Apr 2014

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsdoorkeeper5.9.6-13117 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume302 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year302
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year30
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases78 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 16 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~67.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count78
latest_release_tagv5.9.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases67.8
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?

98Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars5,521 stars
25/25Forks1,078 forks
11/15Watchers97 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,078
stars5,521
watchers97
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

100Exceptional
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, coveralls.io, github.com, opencollective.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads112,972,277 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdoorkeeper
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads112,972,277
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 34% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth97 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 60 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled97
top_contributor_share0.345
How it's scored
41.4/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
22.7/30PR acceptance748/987 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs748
open_issues13
closed_issues907
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d27
prs_decided_30d30
issue_closed_ratio0.986
closed_unmerged_prs239
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.5/25Owner reach20 followers of doorkeeper-gem
19.9/25Track record11 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logindoorkeeper-gem
public_repos11
account_age_days4,520

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 17 days ago
20/20Version history131 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdoorkeeper
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://doorkeeper.gitbook.io/guides/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdoorkeeper, oauth, oauth2-provider, oauth2-server, ruby-on-rails, grape, authorization, oauth2, authentication, identity
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://doorkeeper.gitbook.io/guides/
docs_sitehttps://doorkeeper.gitbook.io/guides/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 60 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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
2.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
2/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate7.3
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.

70Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://doorkeeper.gitbook.io/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history79 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://doorkeeper.gitbook.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.806
agent_instruction_files.claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,840
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/312 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes55,518
source_files_sampled312
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5,521GitHub stars
97contributors
302commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
78releases
2bus factor
13open 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 ★ / 1,078 ⇿
0Stars
1,078Forks
78Releases

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.

02004006008001,0001,2001,078122012-082019-082026-08
Major 3Minor 12Patch 39

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 05:41 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
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 6/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 60 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrails>= 7.0Gemfile
RubyGemssprockets-railsGemfile
RubyGemsrspec-coreGemfile
RubyGemsrspec-expectationsGemfile
RubyGemsrspec-mocksGemfile
RubyGemsrspec-rails~> 8.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-supportGemfile
RubyGemsbcrypt~> 3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapterGemfile
RubyGemssqlite3~> 2.3Gemfile
RubyGemsjwt>= 2.7Gemfile
RubyGemstimecopGemfile
RubyGemstzinfo-dataGemfile
RubyGemswebmockGemfile
RubyGemsirb~> 1.8Gemfile
RubyGemsdebug~> 1.8Gemfile
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapterdirect
RubyGemsbcryptdirect
RubyGemsdebugdirect
RubyGemsirbdirect
RubyGemsjwtdirect
RubyGemsrailsdirect
RubyGemsrspec-coredirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectationsdirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocksdirect
RubyGemsrspec-railsdirect
RubyGemsrspec-supportdirect
RubyGemssprockets-railsdirect
RubyGemstimecopdirect
RubyGemswebmockdirect
RubyGemsappraisalindirect
RubyGemscapybaraindirect
RubyGemsdatabase_cleanerindirect
RubyGemsfactory_botindirect
RubyGemsgenerator_specindirect
RubyGemsgrapeindirect
RubyGemsrailtiesindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-capybaraindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-factory_botindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performanceindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-railsindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec_railsindirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
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.