Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 22:34 UTC

fluent / fluentd

Fluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)

RubyApache-2.0★ 13,580 stars⑂ 1,405 forkssince Jun 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

fluent/fluentd holds a health index of 99 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (100/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (56/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

99
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

99
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 89 is calibrated to 99 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

449 followers101 public repossince Jun 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsfluentd1.19.3-43263 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
32.5/36Commit cadence47/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume186 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year186
human_commit_share0.84
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year47
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases25 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 63 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~63.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv1.19.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release63
mean_days_between_releases63.7
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?

100Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars13,580 stars
25/25Forks1,405 forks
14/15Watchers327 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,405
stars13,580
watchers327
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

100Exceptional
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org, github.com
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads63,762,539 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfluentd
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads63,762,539
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?

85Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 66 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.262
How it's scored
39.6/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance2,299/2,611 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs2,299
open_issues128
closed_issues2,098
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.942
closed_unmerged_prs312
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
19.1/25Owner reach449 followers of fluent
25/25Track record101 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers449
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginfluent
public_repos101
account_age_days5,548

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 63 days ago
20/20Version history432 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfluentd
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish63

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.fluentd.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfluentd, logging, data-collector, ruby, cncf
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.fluentd.org
docs_sitehttps://www.fluentd.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

86Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

86Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 66 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
4.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate8.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history82 of 84 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.976
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
8/8Automated maintenance16 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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_share0.16
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
54.1/55Manageable file sizes7/444 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes131,437
source_files_sampled444
oversized_source_files7
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 examplesexample
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

13,580GitHub stars
99contributors
186commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
25releases
3bus factor
128open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,405 ⇿
0Stars
1,405Forks
25Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

05001,0001,5001,405102016-062021-072026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 20

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.6 / 10
8.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 22:33 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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 66 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsbenchmarkGemfile
All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbenchmarkdirect
RubyGemsasync-httpindirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-coreindirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv4indirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemscertstore_cindirect
RubyGemsconsoleindirect
RubyGemscool.ioindirect
RubyGemscsvindirect
RubyGemsdrbindirect
RubyGemsfiddleindirect
RubyGemsflexmockindirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rbindirect
RubyGemsjsonindirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemsmsgpackindirect
RubyGemsnet-httpindirect
RubyGemsojindirect
RubyGemsostructindirect
RubyGemsparallel_testsindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrexmlindirect
RubyGemsrrindirect
RubyGemsserverengineindirect
RubyGemssigdumpindirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemsstrptimeindirect
RubyGemstest-unitindirect
RubyGemstest-unit-rrindirect
RubyGemstimecopindirect
RubyGemstzinfoindirect
RubyGemstzinfo-dataindirect
RubyGemsuriindirect
RubyGemswebrickindirect
RubyGemswin32-eventindirect
RubyGemswin32-ipcindirect
RubyGemswin32-registryindirect
RubyGemswin32-serviceindirect
RubyGemsyajl-rubyindirect
RubyGemszstd-rubyindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.