Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 10:19 UTC

homemade-software-inc / completion-kit

Your prompts need tests too. Run prompts against real datasets, score outputs with LLM judges, version everything, and compare runs to see what got better.

Ruby · HTMLCustom license★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#anthropic#llm#llm-as-judge#llm-eval#llm-evaluation#mcp#ollama#openai#prompt-engineering#prompt-testing#rails#rails-engine#ruby#ruby-on-rails#evaluation-framework#evaluation-metrics#llm-evaluation-framework#llm-evaluation-metrics#llmops

homemade-software-inc/completion-kit holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (45/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Homemade SoftwareOrganization
0 followers1 public reposince Dec 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscompletion-kit0.28.42-14829 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

80Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,166 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,166
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year23

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 29 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.28.42
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release29
mean_days_between_releases0.9
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

5Critical
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

79Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license 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_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

61Moderate
How it's scored
48.5/80Total downloads — 46,028 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescompletion-kit
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads46,028
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?

50Moderate · 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

68Good
How it's scored
39.8/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
19.1/30PR acceptance — 28/44 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_prs28
open_issues6
closed_issues110
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.948
closed_unmerged_prs16
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.

Ownership & stewardship

36Weak
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of homemade-software-inc
5.7/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginhomemade-software-inc
public_repos1
account_age_days645

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 29 days ago
20/20Version history — 148 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescompletion-kit
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish29

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
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_ciyes
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.

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://completionkit.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsanthropic, llm, llm-as-judge, llm-eval, llm-evaluation, mcp, ollama, openai, prompt-engineering, prompt-testing, rails, rails-engine, ruby, ruby-on-rails, evaluation-framework, evaluation-metrics, llm-evaluation-framework, llm-evaluation-metrics, llmops
has_wikino
homepagehttps://completionkit.com
docs_sitehttps://completionkit.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

42Weak
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
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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
advisories8
affected_packages6
assessed_packages102
unassessed_packages11
affected_by_severitycritical 1, moderate 2, low 3
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 102 resolved dependencies against OSV. 11 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

86Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://completionkit.com/llms.txt)
26.4/40Legible commit history — 48 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://completionkit.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.495
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,516

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 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_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/409 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes52,981
source_files_sampled409
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

3GitHub stars
1contributors
1,166commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
6open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 10:19 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
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemspuma—Gemfile
RubyGemspropshaft—Gemfile
RubyGemscompletion-kit—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemssolid_queue—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemssolid_cable—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemsmission_control-jobs—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemspuma—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemspropshaft—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemsbootsnap—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemsdotenv-rails—standalone/Gemfile
RubyGemspg—standalone/Gemfile
All dependencies 113

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 102 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbootsnap1.24.6direct
RubyGemsdotenv-rails3.2.0direct
RubyGemsmission_control-jobs1.1.0direct
RubyGemspg1.6.3direct
RubyGemspropshaft1.3.2direct
RubyGemspuma8.0.2direct
RubyGemssolid_cable4.0.0direct
RubyGemssolid_queue—direct
RubyGemssolid_queue1.4.0direct
RubyGemssqlite3—direct
RubyGemssqlite32.9.5direct
RubyGemsaction_text-trix2.1.18indirect
RubyGemsactioncable8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactionpack8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactiontext8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivejob8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemscsv—indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdotenv3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.4indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.5indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemset-orbi1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsfactory_bot6.5.6indirect
RubyGemsfactory_bot_rails—indirect
RubyGemsfactory_bot_rails6.5.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry2.4.0indirect
RubyGemsfugit1.12.1indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsheroicons-rails—indirect
RubyGemsheroicons-rails1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsimportmap-rails2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.20.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.1indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.1indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2indirect
RubyGemsmail2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsmsgpack1.8.3indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.6.4.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.5indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsraabro1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrails—indirect
RubyGemsrails8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrailties8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails8.0.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsstimulus-rails1.3.4indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.6.1indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsturbo-rails—indirect
RubyGemsturbo-rails2.0.23indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.8.2indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 102 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 11 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activestorage8.1.3indirectcritical18.1.3.1
loofah2.25.1indirectmoderate32.25.2
mail2.9.0indirectmoderate12.9.1
json2.20.0indirectlow12.21.2
json2.21.1indirectlow12.21.2
rails-html-sanitizer1.7.0indirectlow11.7.1

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 homemade-software-inc/completion-kit. Read them side by side →

97promptfoo/promptfooTest your prompts, agents, and RAGs. Red teaming/pentesting/vulnerability scanning for AI. Compare performance of GPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and more. Simple declarative configs with command line and CI/CD integration. Used by OpenAI and Anthropic.Exceptional100Arize-ai/phoenixAI Observability & EvaluationExceptional98comet-ml/opikDebug, evaluate, and monitor your LLM applications, RAG systems, and agentic workflows with comprehensive tracing, automated evaluations, and production-ready dashboards.Exceptional98strands-agents/toolsA set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.Exceptional96langfuse/langfuse🪢 Open source agent evals & observability: Trace, evaluate, and improve LLM applications with one open platform.Exceptional95juspay/neurolinkOne TypeScript interface for 24+ LLM providers — swap providers without rewriting. MCP-native (connect any MCP server), voice (TTS/STT/realtime), RAG, memory, file processors. Production-origin: powers Tara, Yama, and Clairvoyance at Juspay.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 — RubyGems.