Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 17:12 UTC

honeybadger-io / honeybadger-ruby

Ruby gem for reporting errors to honeybadger.io

RubyMIT★ 270 stars⑂ 154 forkssince Jun 2012View on GitHub ↗

honeybadger-io/honeybadger-ruby holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HoneybadgerOrganization
98 followers96 public repossince Jun 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemshoneybadger6.9.1-2460 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
21.5/36Commit cadence31/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume81 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained22 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year81
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year31

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases87 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~12.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count87
latest_release_tagv6.9.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases12.5
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.4/60Stars270 stars
18.2/25Forks154 forks
4.3/15Watchers7 watchers
Inputs used
forks154
stars270
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
78.9/80Total downloads39,436,434 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshoneybadger
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads39,436,434
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?

83Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth94 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled94
top_contributor_share0.357
How it's scored
39.1/42Issue resolution93% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance462/532 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs462
open_issues21
closed_issues277
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.93
closed_unmerged_prs70
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
14.3/25Owner reach98 followers of honeybadger-io
25/25Track record96 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers98
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginhoneybadger-io
public_repos96
account_age_days5,132
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history246 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshoneybadger
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests16 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
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://docs.honeybadger.io/lib/ruby/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshoneybadger, ruby, rails, cli-command, error-notification
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://docs.honeybadger.io/lib/ruby/
docs_sitehttps://docs.honeybadger.io/lib/ruby/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests16 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained22 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
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_aggregate6.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,123
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
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 data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/193 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes40,349
source_files_sampled193
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

270GitHub stars
94contributors
81commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
87releases
2bus factor
21open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10
6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 17:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests16 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 17/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained22 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsallocation_statsGemfile
RubyGemsappraisal~> 2.1Gemfile
RubyGemsaruba~> 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-its~> 1.3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsruby-profGemfile
RubyGemstimecopGemfile
RubyGemswebmockGemfile
RubyGemsbigdecimalGemfile
RubyGemsbase64Gemfile
RubyGemsmutex_mGemfile
RubyGemscapistranoGemfile
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemsrdoc< 8Gemfile
RubyGemsbump~> 0.10.0Gemfile
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsallocation_statsdirect
RubyGemsappraisaldirect
RubyGemsarubadirect
RubyGemsbase64direct
RubyGemsbigdecimaldirect
RubyGemsbumpdirect
RubyGemscapistranodirect
RubyGemsmutex_mdirect
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsrdocdirect
RubyGemsrspecdirect
RubyGemsrspec-itsdirect
RubyGemsruby-profdirect
RubyGemstimecopdirect
RubyGemswebmockdirect
RubyGemsguardindirect
RubyGemsguard-rspecindirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemsostructindirect
RubyGemspryindirect
RubyGemspry-byebugindirect
RubyGemsstandardindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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