Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 02:35 UTC

hashicorp / vagrant

Vagrant is a tool for building and distributing development environments.

RubyCustom license★ 27,200 stars⑂ 4,402 forkssince Jan 2010View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

hashicorp/vagrant holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

91
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HashiCorpOrganization
10,733 followers941 public repossince May 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsvagrantpoints to another repo — not scored2.4.9-71348 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence19/52 weeks with commits
16/18Commit volume60 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year60
human_commit_share0.75
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year19

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 64 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~18.9 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag2.4.10.dev+000834-2757db88
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release64
mean_days_between_releases18.9

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

90Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars27,200 stars
25/25Forks4,402 forks
15/15Watchers705 watchers
Inputs used
forks4,402
stars27,200
watchers705
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 51 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.398
How it's scored
39.1/42Issue resolution93% of issues closed
21.3/30PR acceptance2,800/3,951 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs2,800
open_issues670
closed_issues8,984
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.931
closed_unmerged_prs1,151
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach10,733 followers of hashicorp
25/25Track record941 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers10,733
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginhashicorp
public_repos941
account_age_days5,574
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows15 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests23 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.vagrantup.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsvagrant, ruby, automation, virtualization
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.vagrantup.com
docs_sitehttps://www.vagrantup.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests23 out of 23 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
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 51 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packagingno data
2.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.5/40Legible commit history33 of 75 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.44
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
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance17 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.17
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1,471 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes56,548
source_files_sampled1,471
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)builtin/myplugin/proto/plugin.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesbuiltin/myplugin/proto/plugin.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

27,200GitHub stars
98contributors
60commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
670open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-21: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 27200 stars today.
  • rubygems package 'vagrant' points at a different repository (http://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 27,193 ★ / 4,402 ⇿
27,193Stars
4,402Forks
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 2026-07-21. 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.

05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00027,1934,402282020-052023-062026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 9

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 02:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests23 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 4/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 51 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsvagrant-specGemfile
RubyGemsvagrant-specGemfile
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsvagrant-specdirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbcrypt_pbkdfindirect
RubyGemschildprocessindirect
RubyGemscsvindirect
RubyGemsed25519indirect
RubyGemserubiindirect
RubyGemsfake_ftpindirect
RubyGemsgrpc-toolsindirect
RubyGemshashicorp-checkpointindirect
RubyGemsi18nindirect
RubyGemsipaddrindirect
RubyGemslistenindirect
RubyGemslog4rindirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemsmime-typesindirect
RubyGemsnet-ftpindirect
RubyGemsnet-scpindirect
RubyGemsnet-sftpindirect
RubyGemsnet-sshindirect
RubyGemsostructindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake-compilerindirect
RubyGemsrb-kqueueindirect
RubyGemsrexmlindirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec-itsindirect
RubyGemsrubyzipindirect
RubyGemsvagrant_cloudindirect
RubyGemswdmindirect
RubyGemswebrickindirect
RubyGemswinrmindirect
RubyGemswinrm-elevatedindirect
RubyGemswinrm-fsindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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