Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 05:59 UTC

drapergem / draper

Decorators/View-Models for Rails Applications

RubyMIT★ 5,276 stars⑂ 523 forkssince Jun 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

drapergem/draper holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (89/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). It was last updated 90 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

drapergemOrganization
3 followers1 public reposince Oct 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsdraper4.0.6-61284 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

40Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 90 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume22 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_year22
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push90
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases5 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 282 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~408.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv4.0.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release282
mean_days_between_releases408.9

Community & Adoption

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

89Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars5,276 stars
22.7/25Forks523 forks
10/15Watchers64 watchers
Inputs used
forks523
stars5,276
watchers64
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads61,254,742 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdraper
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads61,254,742
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?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 52 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.28
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
22.8/30PR acceptance377/495 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 12/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs377
open_issues20
closed_issues442
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.957
closed_unmerged_prs118
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
4.3/25Owner reach3 followers of drapergem
14.2/25Track record1 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers3
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logindrapergem
public_repos1
account_age_days5,074
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 284 days ago
20/20Version history61 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdraper
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish284

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://rubydoc.info/github/drapergem/draper/frames
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdecorators, ruby
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttp://rubydoc.info/github/drapergem/draper/frames
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 12/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 52 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-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
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_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages26
affected_by_severitynone
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 26 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.

38Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
34.1/40Legible commit history64 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.64
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/135 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes29,237
source_files_sampled135
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5,276GitHub stars
100contributors
22commits, last 12 months
90days since last push
5releases
3bus factor
20open 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 ★ / 523 ⇿
0Stars
523Forks
5Releases

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.

0100200300400500600501152011-072019-012026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 5

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 05:58 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
5CI-Tests8 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 12/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 52 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 21
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemspumaGemfile
RubyGemssqlite3Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3~> 1.4.0Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3~> 1.3.6Gemfile
RubyGemsminitestGemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapterGemfile
RubyGemsrailsGemfile
RubyGemsrailsGemfile
RubyGemsrailsGemfile
RubyGemsmongoidGemfile
RubyGemsactive_model_serializersGemfile
RubyGemsturbo-rails<= 2.0.7Gemfile
RubyGemsredis~> 4.0Gemfile
RubyGemsturbo-railsGemfile
RubyGemsredis~> 4.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-activerecord-expectations~> 1.2.0Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov0.17.1Gemfile
RubyGemsloofah< 2.21.0Gemfile
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby< 1.3.5Gemfile
RubyGemsmongoidGemfile
RubyGemsostructGemfile
All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactive_model_serializersdirect
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapterdirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-rubydirect
RubyGemsloofahdirect
RubyGemsminitestdirect
RubyGemsmongoiddirect
RubyGemsostructdirect
RubyGemspumadirect
RubyGemsrailsdirect
RubyGemsredisdirect
RubyGemsrspec-activerecord-expectationsdirect
RubyGemssimplecovdirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.17.1direct
RubyGemssqlite3direct
RubyGemsturbo-railsdirect
RubyGemsactionpackindirect
RubyGemsactivemodelindirect
RubyGemsactivemodel-serializers-xmlindirect
RubyGemsactivesupportindirect
RubyGemsammeterindirect
RubyGemscapybaraindirect
RubyGemsminitest-railsindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrequest_storeindirect
RubyGemsrspec-railsindirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywordsindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 26 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 statisticsRubyGems.