Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 12:52 UTC

evolve75 / RubyTree

A General Purpose Tree Data Structure for Ruby

RubyCustom license★ 391 stars⑂ 90 forkssince Jan 2010View on GitHub ↗

evolve75/RubyTree holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (73/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 34 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Anupam SenguptaPersonal account
12 followers14 public repossince Jan 2010

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsrubytree2.2.2-4434 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 34 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18Commit volume19 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year19
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push34
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases16 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 34 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~187.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagR2.2.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release34
mean_days_between_releases187.1

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42/60Stars391 stars
16.2/25Forks90 forks
4.7/15Watchers8 watchers
Inputs used
forks90
stars391
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, coveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
69.6/80Total downloads4,955,846 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrubytree
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads4,955,846
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth21 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.898
How it's scored
33.5/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
23.4/30PR acceptance57/73 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs57
open_issues12
closed_issues47
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.797
closed_unmerged_prs16
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
8/25Owner reach12 followers of evolve75
20.6/25Track record14 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers12
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginevolve75
public_repos14
account_age_days6,095
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 34 days ago
20/20Version history44 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrubytree
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish34

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 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
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
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://rubytree.anupamsg.me
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstree, ruby, rt-gem, traversal, data-structures
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://rubytree.anupamsg.me
docs_sitehttp://rubytree.anupamsg.me
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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_packages49
unassessed_packages16
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 49 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
30.6/40Legible commit history54 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.574
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
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
52.4/55Manageable file sizes1/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes64,117
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

391GitHub stars
21contributors
19commits, last 12 months
34days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
12open 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 ★ / 90 ⇿
0Stars
90Forks
13Releases

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.

0204060801008132010-042017-082024-12
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 12:52 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-Tests6 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 65

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 65 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsawesome_botindirect
RubyGemsawesome_bot1.20.0indirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemsbundler-auditindirect
RubyGemsbundler-audit0.9.3indirect
RubyGemschef-utils19.3.15indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsdate3.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsjsonindirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.5.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.3indirect
RubyGemsmdlindirect
RubyGemsmdl0.14.0indirect
RubyGemsmixlib-cli2.1.8indirect
RubyGemsmixlib-config3.0.27indirect
RubyGemsmixlib-shellout3.3.8indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.20.1indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.6.0indirect
RubyGemspower_assert2.0.4indirect
RubyGemspsych5.2.2indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrdocindirect
RubyGemsrdoc6.10.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.9.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrtags0.97indirect
RubyGemsrtagstaskindirect
RubyGemsrtagstask0.0.4indirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.69.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.37.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rakeindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-lcovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov0.8.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.1.2indirect
RubyGemstest-unitindirect
RubyGemstest-unit3.6.7indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstomlrb2.0.4indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.1.2indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.0.4indirect
RubyGemsyardindirect
RubyGemsyard0.9.44indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 49 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 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.

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.