Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 19:52 UTC

grosser / parallel_tests

Ruby: 2 CPUs = 2x Testing Speed for RSpec, Test::Unit and Cucumber

RubyMIT★ 3,520 stars⑂ 511 forkssince May 2009View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

grosser/parallel_tests holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Michael GrosserPersonal account
901 followers544 public repossince May 2008Zendesk.com

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18Commit volume — 10 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year10
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36Release recency — latest release 155 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~44.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv5.7.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release155
mean_days_between_releases44.9
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?

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
57.5/60Stars — 3,520 stars
22.6/25Forks — 511 forks
8.8/15Watchers — 39 watchers
Inputs used
forks511
stars3,520
watchers39
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 77 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.731
How it's scored
34.1/42Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
22.8/30PR acceptance — 323/425 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs323
open_issues111
closed_issues484
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.813
closed_unmerged_prs102
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
21.2/25Owner reach — 901 followers of grosser
25/25Track record — 544 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers901
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logingrosser
public_repos544
account_age_days6,685
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 18 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 18 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 77 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 1 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
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 66 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages47
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 47 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
29.3/40Legible commit history — 55 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.55
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 environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/81 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes31,668
source_files_sampled81
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3,520GitHub stars
100contributors
10commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
111open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-16: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 3520 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 3,514 ★ / 511 ⇿
3,514Stars
511Forks
100Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-16. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

01,2502,5003,7503,514489422009-052018-012026-08
Major 3Minor 59Patch 38

Each point covers 16 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 19:51 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 77 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 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
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
0Vulnerabilities66 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsbump—Gemfile
RubyGemstest-unit—Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec—Gemfile
RubyGemscucumber—Gemfile
RubyGemscuke_modeler—Gemfile
RubyGemsspinach—Gemfile
RubyGemsracc—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.73.1Gemfile
RubyGemslogger—Gemfile
All dependencies 48

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbump0.10.0direct
RubyGemscucumber10.0.0direct
RubyGemscuke_modeler3.31.0direct
RubyGemslogger1.7.0direct
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6direct
RubyGemsracc1.8.1direct
RubyGemsrake13.2.1direct
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.73.1direct
RubyGemsspinach0.12.0direct
RubyGemstest-unit3.6.7direct
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.2.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemscolorize1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-ci-environment10.0.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-core15.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-cucumber-expressions18.0.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-gherkin30.1.3indirect
RubyGemscucumber-html-formatter21.13.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-messages27.2.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-tag-expressions6.1.2indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.2indirect
RubyGemsgherkin-ruby0.3.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.10.1indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.4indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_test1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel—indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.26.3indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.7.1indirect
RubyGemspower_assert2.0.5indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.38.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssys-uname1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 47 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
json2.10.1indirecthigh22.19.9

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 statistics.