Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 15:28 UTC

infrablocks / rake_circle_ci

Rake tasks for CircleCI projects.

RubyMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2020View on GitHub ↗

infrablocks/rake_circle_ci holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (63/100) and lowest on Vitality (35/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

42
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.

42
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

InfraBlocksOrganization
39 followers120 public repossince Mar 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsrake_circle_ci0.13.0-40723 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 9 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume3 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases6 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 732 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~318.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv0.13.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release732
mean_days_between_releases318.4
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?

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers5
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.2/80Total downloads132,744 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrake_circle_ci
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads132,744
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 39% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.386
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
18.2/30PR acceptance119/196 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs119
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs77
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
11.5/25Owner reach39 followers of infrablocks
25/25Track record120 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers39
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logininfrablocks
public_repos120
account_age_days3,414
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 723 days ago
20/20Version history40 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrake_circle_ci
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish723

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
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-Tests0 out of 14 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrake, ruby, ruby-gem, rubygem, taskset, rake-taskset, circle-ci, rake-task, infrablocks
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?

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: activesupport 7.2.2.1 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 118 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories12
affected_packages6
assessed_packages68
unassessed_packages4
affected_by_severityhigh 5, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 68 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

38Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
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
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/42 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes41,781
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
4contributors
3commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
6releases
2bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 15:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 14 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 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsactivesupportGemfile
RubyGemsbundlerGemfile
RubyGemsgem-releaseGemfile
RubyGemsmemfsGemfile
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemsrake_gitGemfile
RubyGemsrake_git_cryptGemfile
RubyGemsrake_githubGemfile
RubyGemsrake_gpgGemfile
RubyGemsrake_sshGemfile
RubyGemsrspecGemfile
RubyGemsrubocopGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rakeGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecGemfile
RubyGemssimplecovGemfile
All dependencies 72

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 58 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.2.1direct
RubyGemsgem-release2.2.4direct
RubyGemsmemfs1.0.0direct
RubyGemsrake13.3.0direct
RubyGemsrake_git0.2.0direct
RubyGemsrake_git_crypt0.2.0direct
RubyGemsrake_github0.15.0direct
RubyGemsrake_gpg0.20.0direct
RubyGemsrake_ssh0.12.0direct
RubyGemsrspec3.13.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.75.8direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.6.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.7indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8indirect
RubyGemschildprocess5.0.0indirect
RubyGemscolored2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.4indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsexconindirect
RubyGemsexcon1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsgit1.19.1indirect
RubyGemshamster3.0.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.6indirect
RubyGemsimmutable-struct2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.12.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslino4.1.0indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.4indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsoctokit8.1.0indirect
RubyGemsopen41.3.4indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.4.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix6.0.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake_factoryindirect
RubyGemsrake_factory0.33.0indirect
RubyGemsrchardet1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.4indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.44.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsruby_git_crypt0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsruby_gpg20.12.0indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.9.2indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.12.3indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemssshkeyindirect
RubyGemssshkey2.0.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.0.4indirect
RubyGemsuri0.13.2indirect
Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 68 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport7.2.2.1directhigh38.1.2.1
addressable2.8.7indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.3.4indirecthigh31.3.7
faraday2.10.0indirecthigh32.14.3
uri0.13.2indirecthigh11.0.4
excon1.2.7indirectmoderate11.5.0

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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