Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 03:56 UTC

groupdocs-conversion-cloud / groupdocs-conversion-cloud-ruby

Ruby GEM to communicate with the GroupDocs.Conversion REST API. Convert between 50+ file formats including Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, PDF, OpenDocument files, images & more.

RubyMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Oct 2018View on GitHub ↗

groupdocs-conversion-cloud/groupdocs-conversion-cloud-ruby holds a health index of 44 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (53/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (35/100). It was last updated 34 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

44
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.

44
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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

11 followers21 public repossince Jan 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsgroupdocs_conversion_cloud26.8-3734 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 34 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume — 4 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_year4
human_commit_share0.979
days_since_last_push34
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 35 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 34 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~58 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tagv26.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release34
mean_days_between_releases58
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?

35Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars0
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.1/80Total downloads — 34,290 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgroupdocs_conversion_cloud
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads34,290
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?

46Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 81% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.809
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
7.5/30PR acceptance — 1/4 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
7.8/25Owner reach — 11 followers of groupdocs-conversion-cloud
21.8/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logingroupdocs-conversion-cloud
public_repos21
account_age_days3,172

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 34 days ago
20/20Version history — 37 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgroupdocs_conversion_cloud
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish34

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://products.groupdocs.cloud/conversion/ruby
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 14 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgroupdocs-conversion-cloud, conversion-cloud-api, ruby-gem, word, excel, powerpoint, visio, opendocument, image, pdf, html, tex, xps, conversion-rest-api
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://products.groupdocs.cloud/conversion/ruby
docs_sitehttps://products.groupdocs.cloud/conversion/ruby
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
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 — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages18
unassessed_packages4
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 18 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.groupdocs.cloud/llms.txt)
1.1/40Legible commit history — 1 of 47 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.groupdocs.cloud/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.021
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 48
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 48 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.021
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/93 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes32,420
source_files_sampled93
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
7contributors
4commits, last 12 months
34days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
13Releases

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.

12233312023-022024-012024-12
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 03:56 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsaddressable—indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.10indirect
RubyGemsfaraday—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday1.10.6indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_http1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_synchrony1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-excon1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-httpclient1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http_persistent1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-patron1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-rack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry1.0.4indirect
RubyGemslogger—indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 18 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
addressable2.8.10indirecthigh12.9.0

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 — RubyGems.