Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 15:07 UTC

getlago / lago-ruby-client

Ruby wrapper for the Lago Rest API

RubyMIT★ 14 stars⑂ 11 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

getlago/lago-ruby-client holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (93/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (54/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

93
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.

93
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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LagoOrganization · verified domain
320 followers33 public repossince Dec 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemslago-ruby-client1.50.0-7439 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume147 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year147
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year43

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases31 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 39 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~18.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tagv1.50.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release39
mean_days_between_releases18.7
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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars14 stars
8.3/25Forks11 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars14
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
53/80Total downloads125,989 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslago-ruby-client
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads125,989
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?

93Exceptional · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 19% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth32 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled32
top_contributor_share0.187
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance340/351 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_prs340
open_issues0
closed_issues15
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs11
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
18/25Owner reach320 followers of getlago
22.6/25Track record33 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers320
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logingetlago
public_repos33
account_age_days2,086

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 39 days ago
20/20Version history74 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslago-ruby-client
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish39

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 20 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://doc.getlago.com
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttps://doc.getlago.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 20 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
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 12 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
7.5/7.5Maintained27 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
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
0/7.5Token-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_aggregate6.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. 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_packages73
unassessed_packages21
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 73 resolved dependencies against OSV. 21 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://getlago.com/llms.txt)
35.6/40Legible commit history62 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://getlago.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.667
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 environmentDockerfile, lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance7 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.07
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/139 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes53,176
source_files_sampled139
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

14GitHub stars
32contributors
147commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
31releases
4bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
30Releases

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.

0246810121112022-052024-062026-07
Major 0Minor 24Patch 6

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.7 / 10
6.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 15:07 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-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained27 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 94

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 94 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmarkindirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimalindirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.9indirect
RubyGemsbyebug12.0.0indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrack0.4.5indirect
RubyGemsdebugindirect
RubyGemsdebug1.7.2indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsfactory_botindirect
RubyGemsfactory_bot6.5.6indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.2indirect
RubyGemsformatador1.2.2indirect
RubyGemsguardindirect
RubyGemsguard2.19.1indirect
RubyGemsguard-compat1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsguard-rspecindirect
RubyGemsguard-rspec4.7.3indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.0.1indirect
RubyGemshttplogindirect
RubyGemshttplog1.7.3indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsirb1.6.3indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.9indirect
RubyGemsjwtindirect
RubyGemsjwt3.2.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslisten3.9.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemslumberjack1.4.2indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmutex_mindirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnenv0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnotiffany0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsobserverindirect
RubyGemsobserver0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsopensslindirect
RubyGemsopenssl4.0.2indirect
RubyGemsostructindirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.4.0indirect
RubyGemspry0.15.2indirect
RubyGemspry-byebugindirect
RubyGemspry-byebug3.11.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsreadlineindirect
RubyGemsreadline0.0.4indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.65.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.45.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performanceindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.23.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.4.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-thread_safetyindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-thread_safety0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsshellany0.0.1indirect
RubyGemsthor1.4.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemswebmockindirect
RubyGemswebmock3.18.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 73 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 21 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.