Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-25 09:53 UTC

hmcts / hwf_hmrc_api

Basic logic to communicate and parse data to/from HMRC API.

RubyMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

hmcts/hwf_hmrc_api holds a health index of 47 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Security (57/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 80 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

47
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.

47
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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HM Courts & Tribunals ServiceOrganization
462 followers1,898 public repossince Oct 2016

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

29At Risk
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 80 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18Commit volume — 7 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_year7
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push80
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 26 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 80 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~140.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv0.3.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release80
mean_days_between_releases140.3
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

4Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
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?

46Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
26.4/30PR acceptance — 37/42 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs37
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs5
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.

Ownership & stewardship

74Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
19.2/25Owner reach — 462 followers of hmcts
25/25Track record — 1,898 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers462
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginhmcts
public_repos1,898
account_age_days3,633

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
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 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
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?

57Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak
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 12 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
0.8/7.5Maintained — 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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, 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_packages61
unassessed_packages3
affected_by_severitylow 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 61 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 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

Agent context & guidance

19Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.9/40Legible commit history — 35 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.354
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
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
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/34 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes11,636
source_files_sampled34
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
7commits, last 12 months
80days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch rubygems package 'hwf_hmrc_api' from its registry

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 · 2026-09-25 09:52 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 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 64

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 64 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.1indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.2.1indirect
RubyGemshttparty—indirect
RubyGemshttparty0.24.2indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.20.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmacaddr1.7.2indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsmulti_xml0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspry0.16.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrotp—indirect
RubyGemsrotp6.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-capybara3.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-factory_bot2.28.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails2.35.5indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec_rails2.32.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssystemu2.6.5indirect
RubyGemstimecop0.9.11indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuuid—indirect
RubyGemsuuid2.3.9indirect
RubyGemsvcr6.4.0indirect
RubyGemswebmock3.26.2indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 61 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
json2.20.0indirectlow12.21.2

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with hmcts/hwf_hmrc_api. Read them side by side →

100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional99grpc/grpcC++ based gRPC (C++, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, PHP, C#)Exceptional99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐ Star us on GitHubExceptional99stripe/stripe-rubyRuby library for the Stripe API. Exceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional99stripe/stripe-react-nativeReact Native library for Stripe.Exceptional

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.