Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 15:49 UTC

galtzo-floss / anonymous_active_record

Faux Anonymous AR Models for testing Concerns, Observers, Decorators

RubyMIT★ 12 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jan 2018View on GitHub ↗
#activerecord#anonymous#test#rspec#minitest

galtzo-floss/anonymous_active_record holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (68/100) and lowest on Vitality (27/100). It was last updated 184 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
overall / 100
Weak

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.

42
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Galtzo Open SourceOrganization
5 followers60 public repossince May 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsanonymous_active_recordpoints to another repo — not scored1.0.9-15670 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

27At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

11Critical
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 184 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume — 3 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push184
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

52Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 670 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv1.0.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release670
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

17Critical
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars — 12 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars12
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

37Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

31At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 76% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.762

Issue & PR responsiveness

18Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
15.7/30PR acceptance — 23/44 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs23
open_issues2
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs21
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.

Ownership & stewardship

64Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
5.6/25Owner reach — 5 followers of galtzo-floss
15.3/25Track record — 60 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_logingaltzo-floss
public_repos60
account_age_days421
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://railsbling.com/anonymous_active_record/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsactiverecord, anonymous, test, rspec, minitest
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://railsbling.com/anonymous_active_record/
docs_sitehttp://railsbling.com/anonymous_active_record/
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

Security posture

42Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories10
affected_packages5
assessed_packages69
unassessed_packages14
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 3
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 69 resolved dependencies against OSV. 14 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes28,067
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
5contributors
3commits, last 12 months
184days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
2open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • rubygems package 'anonymous_active_record' points at a different repository (http://github.com/pboling/anonymous_active_record/tree/v1.0.9); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 15:49 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 83

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 83 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivemodel7.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord—indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord7.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.1indirect
RubyGemsansi1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbackports3.25.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8indirect
RubyGemsbyebug11.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.4indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdiffy3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.6indirect
RubyGemsjson2.7.2indirect
RubyGemskettle-soup-cover—indirect
RubyGemskettle-soup-cover1.0.4indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.3indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.6.1indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.1indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.26.3indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.5.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.2.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.9.2indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.3.9indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-block_is_expected—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-block_is_expected1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.65.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.32.3indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-gradual0.3.6indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-lts—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-lts12.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-md1.2.3indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ruby2_42.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-shopify2.15.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-thread_safety0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.3.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura2.1.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-console0.9.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov0.8.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-rcov0.3.7indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—indirect
RubyGemssqlite31.7.3indirect
RubyGemsstandard—indirect
RubyGemsstandard1.40.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard-rubocop-lts1.0.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.4.1indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsversion_gem—indirect
RubyGemsversion_gem1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsyard—indirect
RubyGemsyard0.9.37indirect
RubyGemsyard-junk—indirect
RubyGemsyard-junk0.0.10indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 69 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 14 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport7.2.1indirecthigh38.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.3.4indirecthigh31.3.7
activerecord7.2.1indirectmoderate18.0.2.1
rexml3.3.9indirectmoderate13.4.2
yard0.9.37indirectmoderate20.9.44

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with galtzo-floss/anonymous_active_record. Read them side by side →

73Casecommons/with_modelDynamically build an Active Record model (with table) within a test contextGood87mbj/mutantMutation testing for Ruby. AI writes your code. AI writes your tests. But who tests the tests?Excellent83galtzo-floss/turbo_tests2🚀 Run RSpec tests on multiple cores. Like parallel_tests but with incremental summarized output. Originally extracted from the Discourse and Rubygems source code.Excellent88shouldly/shouldlyShould testing for .NET—the way assertions should be!Excellent98microsoft/react-native-test-appreact-native-test-app provides an app for all supported platforms as a packageExceptional98rails/railsRuby on RailsExceptional

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — RubyGems.