Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-04 15:42 UTC

instructure / switchman

RubyMIT★ 67 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Dec 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

instructure/switchman holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

Instructure, Inc.Organization
463 followers212 public repossince Dec 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsswitchman4.3.1-2740 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume — 18 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 299 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~46 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv4.2.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release299
mean_days_between_releases46
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.5/60Stars — 67 stars
11.8/25Forks — 27 forks
6.2/15Watchers — 14 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars67
watchers14
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
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
65.1/80Total downloads — 1,840,072 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesswitchman
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads1,840,072
monthly_downloads
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 61% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 27 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled27
top_contributor_share0.611
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
3.4/30PR acceptance — 7/61 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs54
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
19.2/25Owner reach — 463 followers of instructure
25/25Track record — 212 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers463
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logininstructure
public_repos212
account_age_days5,717

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 — 274 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesswitchman
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgerrit-mirror
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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 — no data
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): ci_tests, 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
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages76
unassessed_packages4
affected_by_severitymoderate 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 76 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
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
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_files
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 — 0/130 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes34,047
source_files_sampled130
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

67GitHub stars
27contributors
18commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 27 ⇿
0Stars
27Forks
100Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

0510152025302712014-102020-082026-07
Major 3Minor 10Patch 87

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 15:42 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
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 16 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsactiverecord~> 7.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrailties~> 7.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord7.2.3Gemfile
RubyGemsrack~> 3.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrailties~> 7.2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord~> 8.0.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrack~> 3.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrailties~> 8.0.0Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord~> 8.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrack~> 3.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrailties~> 8.1.0Gemfile
All dependencies 80

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 75 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactiverecorddirect
RubyGemsactiverecord8.1.3direct
RubyGemsrack3.2.6direct
RubyGemsrailtiesdirect
RubyGemsrailties8.1.3direct
RubyGemsactionpack8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.4indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsguardrailindirect
RubyGemsguardrail3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.20.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.1indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsparallelindirect
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemspg1.6.3indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails7.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-inst1.2.3indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec_rails2.32.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.6.1indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 76 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
loofah2.25.1indirectmoderate32.25.2
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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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