Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 20:24 UTC

doximity / rake-ui

A Rails Engine to Manage Rake Tasks

Ruby · HTMLApache-2.0★ 54 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Feb 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginNetwork servicehow this is determined

doximity/rake-ui holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (65/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Doximity, Inc.Organization
136 followers63 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
RubyGemsrake-ui0.1.2-40 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
10.3/18Commit volume — 13 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~673 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv0.1.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases673
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28/60Stars — 54 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
9.9/15Watchers — 61 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars54
watchers61
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
48.1/80Total downloads — 42,682 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrake-ui
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads42,682
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.688
How it's scored
10.5/42Issue resolution — 25% of issues closed
15.7/30PR acceptance — 22/42 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs22
open_issues3
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.25
closed_unmerged_prs20
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.4/25Owner reach — 136 followers of doximity
25/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers136
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logindoximity
public_repos63
account_age_days6,066
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
12/20Version history — 4 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrake-ui
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

39Weak · 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
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrake-ui, admin, rails, rake
has_wikino
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?

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 15 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
2.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 92 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, 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
advisories92
affected_packages16
assessed_packages63
unassessed_packages5
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 9, moderate 4, low 2
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 63 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.9/40Legible commit history — 26 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.26
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
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_share0.02
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 — 0/44 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes5,343
source_files_sampled44
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

54GitHub stars
10contributors
13commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
3open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks

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.

0246810121112022-072024-022025-10

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 20:23 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
4CI-Tests3 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 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
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities92 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactioncable6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactionpack—indirect
RubyGemsactionpack6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactiontext6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactionview6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactivejob6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.2.4indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.2.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsdate3.3.3indirect
RubyGemserubi1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.1indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.21.3indirect
RubyGemsmail2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.2indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.18.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.3.6indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.3.3indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.9indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.21.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.1.0.0indirect
RubyGemspry0.14.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.7indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrails6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrailties—indirect
RubyGemsrailties6.1.7.4indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.5indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.25.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.15.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.13.2indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.11.0indirect
RubyGemssprockets4.2.0indirect
RubyGemssprockets-rails3.4.2indirect
RubyGemssqlite31.4.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsstandardrb—indirect
RubyGemsstandardrb1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsthor1.2.2indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.4.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.1.0indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.7.5indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.6.8indirect
Dependency advisories 16

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 63 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 16 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activestorage6.1.7.4indirectcritical88.1.3.1
actionmailer6.1.7.4indirecthigh17.2.1.1
actionpack6.1.7.4indirecthigh48.0.0.1
actiontext6.1.7.4indirecthigh17.2.1.1
activesupport6.1.7.4indirecthigh48.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.2.2indirecthigh31.3.7
nokogiri1.15.2indirecthigh171.19.4
rack2.2.7indirecthigh253.2.6
rexml3.2.5indirecthigh63.3.9
websocket-driver0.7.5indirecthigh40.8.2
activerecord6.1.7.4indirectmoderate18.0.2.1
loofah2.21.3indirectmoderate12.25.2
net-imap0.3.6indirectmoderate90.6.4.1
sqlite31.4.2indirectmoderate12.9.5
actionview6.1.7.4indirectlow18.1.2.1
rails-html-sanitizer1.6.0indirectlow61.7.1

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.