Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 10:30 UTC

hausgold / rimless

A bundle of opinionated Apache Kafka / Confluent Schema Registry helpers

RubyMIT★ 4 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

hausgold/rimless holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HAUSGOLDOrganization · verified domain
8 followers39 public repossince Sep 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsrimless3.7.0-600 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
14.7/18Commit volume — 42 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year42
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 60 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~21.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count60
latest_release_tagv3.7.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases21.7
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars — 4 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars4
watchers9
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.3/80Total downloads — 87,241 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrimless
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads87,241
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.718
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance — 63/78 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_prs63
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs15
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of hausgold
23.7/25Track record — 39 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginhausgold
public_repos39
account_age_days3,645

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 60 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrimless
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://rubygems.org/gems/rimless
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsoss, ruby-gem, gem, kafka, schema-registry
has_wikino
homepagehttps://rubygems.org/gems/rimless
docs_sitehttps://rubygems.org/gems/rimless
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
3/7.5Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.3
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
advisories6
affected_packages4
assessed_packages39
unassessed_packages27
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 1, low 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 39 resolved dependencies against OSV. 27 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.

58Moderate · 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.confluent.io/llms.txt)
20.8/40Legible commit history — 39 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.confluent.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.39
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, doc/kafka-playground/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, doc/kafka-playground/Makefile
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 — 0/54 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes9,883
source_files_sampled54
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

4GitHub stars
3contributors
42commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
60releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 10:29 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
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
4Vulnerabilities6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisal~> 2.4Gemfile
RubyGemsbundler>= 2.6Gemfile
RubyGemscountless~> 2.2Gemfile
RubyGemsfactory_bot~> 6.2Gemfile
RubyGemsguard-rspec~> 4.7Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 13.0Gemfile
RubyGemsredcarpet~> 3.5Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.12Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov>= 0.22Gemfile
RubyGemstimecop>= 0.9.6Gemfile
RubyGemsvcr~> 6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsyard>= 0.9.28Gemfile
RubyGemsyard-activesupport-concern>= 0.0.1Gemfile
All dependencies 66

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal—direct
RubyGemsbundler—direct
RubyGemscountless—direct
RubyGemsfactory_bot—direct
RubyGemsguard-rspec—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrake13.3.1direct
RubyGemsredcarpet—direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrubocop—direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rails—direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—direct
RubyGemssimplecov—direct
RubyGemstimecop—direct
RubyGemsvcr—direct
RubyGemsyard—direct
RubyGemsyard-activesupport-concern—direct
RubyGemsactivejob—indirect
RubyGemsactivejob8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.9indirect
RubyGemsavro1.12.1indirect
RubyGemsavro_turf—indirect
RubyGemsavro_turf1.20.1indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.6indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsexcon1.4.2indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.4indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.3.0indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.3indirect
RubyGemskarafka—indirect
RubyGemskarafka2.5.9indirect
RubyGemskarafka-core2.5.10indirect
RubyGemskarafka-rdkafka0.24.0indirect
RubyGemskarafka-testing—indirect
RubyGemskarafka-testing2.5.5indirect
RubyGemslogger—indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.3indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.19.1indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsretries—indirect
RubyGemsretries0.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrimless3.0.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssparsify—indirect
RubyGemssparsify1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemswaterdrop—indirect
RubyGemswaterdrop2.8.16indirect
RubyGemswebmock—indirect
RubyGemswebmock3.26.2indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.7.5indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 39 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 27 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
addressable2.8.9indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.3.6indirecthigh31.3.7
excon1.4.2indirectmoderate11.5.0
json2.19.3indirectlow12.19.9

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 — RubyGems.