Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 22:58 UTC

kirillplatonov / hotwire-livereload

Live reload gem for Hotwire Rails apps.

JavaScript · RubyMIT★ 554 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Sep 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

kirillplatonov/hotwire-livereload holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (62/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (20/100). It was last updated 332 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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

Kirill PlatonovPersonal account
157 followers19 public repossince Jun 2011

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemshotwire-livereload2.1.1-21332 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

31At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 332 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume — 5 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push332
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 332 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~130.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv2.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release332
mean_days_between_releases130.5
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44.5/60Stars — 554 stars
11.8/25Forks — 27 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars554
watchers5
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
65.4/80Total downloads — 1,972,478 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshotwire-livereload
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads1,972,478
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.828
How it's scored
37.1/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
24.9/30PR acceptance — 29/35 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs29
open_issues5
closed_issues38
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.884
closed_unmerged_prs6
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.8/25Owner reach — 157 followers of kirillplatonov
21.5/25Track record — 19 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers157
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkirillplatonov
public_repos19
account_age_days5,573
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 332 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshotwire-livereload
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish332

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/hotwire-livereload/2.1.1
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrails, hotwire, livereload, ruby
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/hotwire-livereload/2.1.1
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

36Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 70 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate2.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
20.2/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: esbuild 0.17.12 (moderate 5.3)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
35.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 578 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories70
affected_packages11
assessed_packages69
unassessed_packages3
affected_by_severityhigh 7, moderate 2, low 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 69 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 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.

20At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.9/40Legible commit history — 26 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.28
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 93
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_testsno
lockfilesGemfile.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes19,750
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

554GitHub stars
14contributors
5commits, last 12 months
332days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
5open issues
npm, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'hotwire-livereload' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 27 ⇿
0Stars
27Forks
14Releases

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.

0510152025302712021-122024-022026-04
Major 2Minor 5Patch 7

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.6 / 10
2.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 22:57 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
1CI-Tests2 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Vulnerabilities70 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsstandard—Gemfile
npm@rails/actioncable^7.0.807package.json
npmdebounce^1.2.1package.json
npmesbuild^0.17.12package.json
All dependencies 72

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@rails/actioncable7.0.807direct
npmdebounce1.2.1direct
npmesbuild0.17.12direct
RubyGemsstandard1.25.1direct
npm@esbuild/android-arm0.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/android-x640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-arm640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-x640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-arm640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-x640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm0.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ia320.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-mips64el0.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ppc640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-riscv640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-s390x0.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-x640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-x640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-x640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/sunos-x640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-arm640.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-ia320.17.12indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-x640.17.12indirect
RubyGemsactioncable—indirect
RubyGemsactioncable7.0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsactionpack7.0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsactionview7.0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.2.4indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.2.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemserubi1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsffi1.15.5indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.6.3indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.3indirect
RubyGemslisten—indirect
RubyGemslisten3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.19.1indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.18.0indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.8indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.14.2indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.22.1indirect
RubyGemsparser3.2.1.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.6.4indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsrailties—indirect
RubyGemsrailties7.0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.10.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.5indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.48.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.16.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.2.1indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.4.2indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.7.5indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.6.7indirect
Dependency advisories 11

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 69 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 11 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
actionpack7.0.4.3indirecthigh68.0.0.1
activesupport7.0.4.3indirecthigh48.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.2.2indirecthigh31.3.7
nokogiri1.14.2indirecthigh181.19.4
rack2.2.6.4indirecthigh253.2.6
rexml3.2.5indirecthigh63.3.9
websocket-driver0.7.5indirecthigh40.8.2
esbuild0.17.12directmoderate10.25.0
loofah2.19.1indirectmoderate12.25.2
actionview7.0.4.3indirectlow18.1.2.1
rails-html-sanitizer1.5.0indirectlow11.7.1

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.

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.