# janlelis/unicode-display_width — health index 50/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository janlelis/unicode-display_width by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/janlelis/unicode-display_width
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/janlelis/unicode-display_width
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/janlelis/unicode-display_width/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/j/janlelis/unicode-display_width.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-16
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 34/100 | At risk |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 67/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 52/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 31/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 23/100 | Critical |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Monospace Unicode and Emoji character width in Ruby |
| Primary language | Ruby |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 139 |
| Forks | 26 |
| Created | 2011-01-03 |
| Last push | 2025-12-25 |
| Latest release | v3.2.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 4 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | ruby, unicode, unicode-data, monospace-font, terminal, cli, emoji, wcwidth |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| rubygems | unicode-display_width | 3.2.0 | — |

## Vitality — 34/100 (At risk)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 12/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 3.6 / 36 | last push 202 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 2.1 / 36 | 3/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 6.3 / 18 | 4 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 66/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 46 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | partial | 16.2 / 36 | latest release 309 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~40.1 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 67/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 49/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 34.7 / 60 | 139 stars |
| Forks | partial | 11.7 / 25 | 26 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 2.7 / 15 | 4 watchers |

### Community health — 65/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 944,576,186 downloads all-time across rubygems |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 64/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 30/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 1.1 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 95% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 13 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 6 / 10 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | met | 46.8 / 46.8 | 100% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 35.7 / 38.2 | 14/15 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 66/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 18.2 / 25 | 337 followers of janlelis |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 127 public repos, account ~16 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 91/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on rubygems |
| Publish recency | partial | 26 / 35 | latest publish 309 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 49 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 52/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 8 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 31/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 31/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | partial | 1.5 / 2.5 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 23/100 (Critical)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 27/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Ruby without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/9 source files over 60KB |

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt