Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-02 16:19 UTC

doximity / es-elasticity

Elasticsearch Library for Ruby

RubyCustom license★ 26 stars⑂ 1 forksince Sep 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

doximity/es-elasticity holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (30/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

67
overall / 100
Good

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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Doximity, Inc.Organization
140 followers65 public repossince Jan 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemses-elasticity2.0.1-670 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~257.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tagv2.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases257.5

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.7/60Stars — 26 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
11.3/15Watchers — 107 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars26
watchers107
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicestravis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
54.1/80Total downloads — 160,195 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageses-elasticity
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads160,195
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?

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 27% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 29 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled29
top_contributor_share0.267
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
24.6/30PR acceptance — 77/94 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs77
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs17
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.5/25Owner reach — 140 followers of doximity
25/25Track record — 65 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers140
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logindoximity
public_repos65
account_age_days6,105

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 67 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageses-elasticity
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

49Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/es-elasticity/2.0.1
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselasticsearch
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/es-elasticity/2.0.1
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 8 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 18 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories18
affected_packages4
assessed_packages45
unassessed_packages16
affected_by_severityhigh 4
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 45 resolved dependencies against OSV. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

30At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.6/40Legible commit history — 18 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.18
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
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/30 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes12,319
source_files_sampled30
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

26GitHub stars
29contributors
11commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
27releases
3bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-02 16:18 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
7CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities18 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 61 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivemodel—indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel8.0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord—indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord8.0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.2.2indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemsbyebug—indirect
RubyGemsbyebug11.1.3indirect
RubyGemscodeclimate-test-reporter—indirect
RubyGemscodeclimate-test-reporter1.0.7indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.5indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.5.3indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemselastic-transport—indirect
RubyGemselastic-transport8.5.3indirect
RubyGemselasticsearch—indirect
RubyGemselasticsearch8.19.3indirect
RubyGemselasticsearch-api8.19.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.7indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsoj—indirect
RubyGemsoj3.16.7indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.0indirect
RubyGemspry—indirect
RubyGemspry0.14.2indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.3.0indirect
RubyGemsredis—indirect
RubyGemsredis4.1.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter—indirect
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemstimecop—indirect
RubyGemstimecop0.9.5indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.4.3indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuri1.0.3indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 45 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport8.0.2.1indirecthigh38.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.3.5indirecthigh31.3.7
oj3.16.7indirecthigh113.17.3
uri1.0.3indirecthigh11.0.4

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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