Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 03:48 UTC

klausmeyer / docker-registry-browser

🐳 Web Interface for the Docker Registry HTTP API V2 written in Ruby on Rails.

Ruby · HTMLMIT★ 700 stars⑂ 63 forkssince Apr 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceWeb interfacehow this is determined
#docker#docker-registry#ruby#rails#user-interface#web-app

klausmeyer/docker-registry-browser holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

Klaus MeyerPersonal account
46 followers35 public repossince Feb 2011

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

63Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
10.9/36Commit cadence — 45/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 14 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 105 days
6.3/18Commit volume — 110 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 14 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 105 days
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year110
human_commit_share0.14
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year45

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 56 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~51.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv1.10.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release56
mean_days_between_releases51.2
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

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate
How it's scored
46.1/60Stars — 700 stars
14.9/25Forks — 63 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks63
stars700
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 92% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.916

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good
How it's scored
38.3/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
29.4/30PR acceptance — 782/797 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs782
open_issues9
closed_issues94
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.913
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

57Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12/25Owner reach — 46 followers of klausmeyer
23.3/25Track record — 35 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers46
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginklausmeyer
public_repos35
account_age_days5,692
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://hub.docker.com/r/klausmeyer/docker-registry-browser/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdocker, docker-registry, ruby, rails, user-interface, web-app
has_wikino
homepagehttps://hub.docker.com/r/klausmeyer/docker-registry-browser/
docs_sitehttps://hub.docker.com/r/klausmeyer/docker-registry-browser/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages114
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 114 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://hub.docker.com/llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://hub.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate
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
8/8Automated maintenance — 86 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_share0.86

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/52 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes4,344
source_files_sampled52
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

700GitHub stars
17contributors
110commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
9open 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 ★ / 63 ⇿
0Stars
63Forks
18Releases

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.

01325385063756322016-122021-092026-07
Major 0Minor 5Patch 13

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 03:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 commit(s) and 0 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 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrails~> 8.1.2Gemfile
RubyGemspropshaft—Gemfile
RubyGemspuma>= 5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsimportmap-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemsturbo-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemsbootsnap—Gemfile
RubyGemsfaraday~> 2.9Gemfile
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects~> 0.5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsversion_sorter~> 2.3.0Gemfile
RubyGemsostruct—Gemfile
All dependencies 114

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 104 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbootsnap1.26.0direct
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3direct
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects0.5.0direct
RubyGemsimportmap-rails2.2.3direct
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3direct
RubyGemspropshaft1.3.2direct
RubyGemspuma8.0.2direct
RubyGemsrails8.1.3.1direct
RubyGemsturbo-rails2.0.23direct
RubyGemsversion_sorter2.3.0direct
RubyGemsaction_text-trix2.1.18indirect
RubyGemsactioncable8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionpack8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactiontext8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivejob8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemscapybara3.40.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.1indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.4indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.4.0indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.17.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2indirect
RubyGemsmail2.9.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsmatrix0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsmsgpack1.8.4indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.6.6indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.5indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.10.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.3.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrailties8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrdoc7.2.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails8.0.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.82.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.24.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails2.30.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails-omakase1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip3.6.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsselenium-webdriver4.49.0indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
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
RubyGemsvcr6.4.0indirect
RubyGemswebmock3.26.4indirect
RubyGemswebsocket1.2.11indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.8.2indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemsxpath3.2.0indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.7.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 114 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with klausmeyer/docker-registry-browser. Read them side by side →

98chatwoot/chatwootOpen-source live-chat, email support, omni-channel desk. An alternative to Intercom, Zendesk, Salesforce Service Cloud etc. 🔥💬Exceptional98rails/railsRuby on RailsExceptional97discourse/discourseA platform for community discussion. Free, open, simple.Exceptional96solidusio/solidus🛒 Solidus, the open-source eCommerce framework for industry trailblazers.Exceptional96openfoodfoundation/openfoodnetworkConnect suppliers, distributors and consumers to trade local produce.Exceptional96launchdarkly/ruby-server-sdkLaunchDarkly Server-side SDK for RubyExceptional

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.