Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 01:20 UTC

dry-rb / dry-configurable

A simple mixin to make Ruby classes configurable

RubyMIT★ 425 stars⑂ 55 forkssince Jun 2015View on GitHub ↗

dry-rb/dry-configurable holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 63 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DryOrganization
382 followers41 public repossince Mar 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsdry-configurable1.4.0-4063 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 63 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence21/52 weeks with commits
15.4/18Commit volume51 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year51
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push63
active_weeks_last_year21
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases25 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 63 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~175.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv1.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release63
mean_days_between_releases175.7
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
42.6/60Stars425 stars
14.4/25Forks55 forks
6.5/15Watchers16 watchers
Inputs used
forks55
stars425
watchers16
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads185,134,449 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdry-configurable
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads185,134,449
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 factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth34 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 26 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled34
top_contributor_share0.282
How it's scored
39.6/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
24.1/30PR acceptance89/111 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs89
open_issues3
closed_issues51
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.944
closed_unmerged_prs22
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
18.6/25Owner reach382 followers of dry-rb
23.8/25Track record41 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers382
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logindry-rb
public_repos41
account_age_days4,154
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 63 days ago
20/20Version history40 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdry-configurable
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish63

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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 sitehttps://dry-rb.org/gems/dry-configurable/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdry-rb, ruby, rubygem, library, settings, configuration
has_wikino
homepagehttps://dry-rb.org/gems/dry-configurable/
docs_sitehttps://dry-rb.org/gems/dry-configurable/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests2 out of 2 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 26 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
7.5/7.5Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.4
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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/28 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes13,818
source_files_sampled28
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

425GitHub stars
34contributors
51commits, last 12 months
63days since last push
25releases
3bus factor
3open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 01:19 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 26 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsdry-coreGemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-ipsGemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-memoryGemfile
RubyGemsmemory_profilerGemfile
RubyGemshanami-utilsGemfile
RubyGemsrspec-benchmarkGemfile
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbenchmark-ipsdirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-memorydirect
RubyGemsdry-coredirect
RubyGemshanami-utilsdirect
RubyGemsmemory_profilerdirect
RubyGemsrspec-benchmarkdirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemszeitwerkindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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