# github/jekyll-commonmark-ghpages — health index 68/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository github/jekyll-commonmark-ghpages by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 68 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/github/jekyll-commonmark-ghpages
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/github/jekyll-commonmark-ghpages
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/github/jekyll-commonmark-ghpages/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/g/github/jekyll-commonmark-ghpages.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-18
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.12.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 62/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 73/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 70/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 57/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 79/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 28/100 | Critical |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | CommonMark generator for Jekyll used by GitHub Pages |
| Primary language | Ruby |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 71 |
| Forks | 24 |
| Created | 2017-06-28 |
| Last push | 2026-07-06 |
| Latest release | v0.5.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 72 |
| Bus factor | 2 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| rubygems | jekyll-commonmark-ghpages | 0.5.1 | — |

## Vitality — 62/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 11 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 20.8 / 36 | 30/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 16.7 / 18 | 72 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 3 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 7.2 / 36 | latest release 730 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 5.4 / 27 | a release every ~433.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 73/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 53/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 29.9 / 60 | 71 stars |
| Forks | partial | 11.3 / 25 | 24 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 11.4 / 15 | 114 watchers |

### Community health — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 88/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total downloads | partial | 70.4 / 80 | 5,912,287 downloads all-time across rubygems |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 70/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 15.1 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 33% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 10 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 61/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 19.3 / 46.8 | 41% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 32.9 / 38.2 | 74/86 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | Found no human activity in the last 15 changesets |

### Ownership & stewardship — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 80,129 followers of github |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 553 public repos, account ~18 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 79/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on rubygems |
| Publish recency | partial | 14 / 35 | latest publish 730 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 12 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 57/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 2 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 79/100 (Good)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 79/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Code-Review, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 4.5 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | Found no human activity in the last 15 changesets |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 28/100 (Critical)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 39/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 8 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Ruby without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/3 source files over 60KB |

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt