Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 04:04 UTC

graphql-devise / graphql_devise

GraphQL interface on top devise_token_auth

RubyMIT★ 202 stars⑂ 45 forkssince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗

graphql-devise/graphql_devise holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

graphql-deviseOrganization
0 followers2 public repossince Aug 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsgraphql_devise2.3.0-550 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
12.1/18Commit volume21 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year21
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases55 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~152.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count55
latest_release_tagv2.3.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases152.1
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.4/60Stars202 stars
13.7/25Forks45 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks45
stars202
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
60/80Total downloads588,760 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgraphql_devise
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads588,760
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth16 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.853
How it's scored
37.8/42Issue resolution90% of issues closed
28.2/30PR acceptance156/166 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs156
open_issues12
closed_issues107
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.899
closed_unmerged_prs10
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
0/25Owner reach0 followers of graphql-devise
15.5/25Track record2 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logingraphql-devise
public_repos2
account_age_days2,541
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history55 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgraphql_devise
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests10 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics18 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgraphql, devise, devise-token-auth, rails, dta, graphql-interface, api, api-server, activerecord, gem, rubygem, ruby, authentication-schema, authentication, authentication-backend, authenticate, authentication-token, mongoid
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests10 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/171 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes10,621
source_files_sampled171
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

202GitHub stars
16contributors
21commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
55releases
1bus factor
12open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 04:03 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
7CI-Tests10 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisalindirect
RubyGemscoveralls_rebornindirect
RubyGemsdevise_token_authindirect
RubyGemsfactory_botindirect
RubyGemsfakerindirect
RubyGemsgenerator_specindirect
RubyGemsgithub_changelog_generatorindirect
RubyGemsgraphqlindirect
RubyGemspryindirect
RubyGemspry-byebugindirect
RubyGemsrailsindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrspec-railsindirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performanceindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-railsindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecindirect
RubyGemssqlite3indirect
RubyGemszeitwerkindirect
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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.