Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 08:15 UTC

koedame / rails-mermaid_erd

Generate Mermaid ERD from your Ruby on Rails application.

Ruby · HTMLMIT★ 180 stars⑂ 29 forkssince Oct 2022View on GitHub ↗

koedame/rails-mermaid_erd holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (73/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (57/100). It was last updated 2 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

9 followers14 public repossince Aug 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsrails-mermaid_erd0.8.1-133 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
17.4/18Commit volume85 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year85
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases12 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~159.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv0.8.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases159.3
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
36.5/60Stars180 stars
12.1/25Forks29 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks29
stars180
watchers0
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
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
62.3/80Total downloads1,000,062 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrails-mermaid_erd
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads1,000,062
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.982
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
17.1/30PR acceptance118/207 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs118
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d12
prs_decided_7d12
prs_merged_30d12
prs_decided_30d12
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs89
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
7.2/25Owner reach9 followers of koedame
20.6/25Track record14 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers9
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginkoedame
public_repos14
account_age_days2,225

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history13 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrails-mermaid_erd
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdiagram, erd, gem, mermaid, ruby-on-rails
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages120
unassessed_packages7
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 120 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.5/40Legible commit history65 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.722
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes9,578
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice18 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.18
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/68 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes15,558
source_files_sampled68
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

180GitHub stars
5contributors
85commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
12releases
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 ★ / 29 ⇿
0Stars
29Forks
5Releases

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.

0510152025302922022-102024-082026-05
Major 0Minor 4Patch 1

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 08:15 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
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 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 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisalGemfile
RubyGemsbumpGemfile
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemssolargraphGemfile
RubyGemsnio4r~> 2.7.0Gemfile
All dependencies 127

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 122 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal2.5.0direct
RubyGemsbump0.10.0direct
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.5direct
RubyGemsrake13.4.2direct
RubyGemssolargraph0.60.4direct
RubyGemsaction_text-trix2.1.19indirect
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
RubyGemsbackport1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemscommander5.0.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.4indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsferrumindirect
RubyGemsferrum0.18.0indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.3.0indirect
RubyGemshighline3.0.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjaro_winkler1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.5.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2indirect
RubyGemsmail2.9.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.6.7indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsobserver0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsopen30.2.1indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.28.0indirect
RubyGemsparlour9.1.2indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemspgindirect
RubyGemspg1.6.3indirect
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
RubyGemsrailsindirect
RubyGemsrails8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrailties8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrdoc7.2.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsreverse_markdown3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-railsindirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails8.0.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemssorbet-runtime0.6.13499indirect
RubyGemssord7.1.0indirect
RubyGemsstandardindirect
RubyGemsstandard1.56.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstilt2.7.0indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.6.1indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemstzinfo-dataindirect
RubyGemstzinfo-data1.2026.2indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.8.2indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemsyard0.9.45indirect
RubyGemsyard-activesupport-concern0.0.1indirect
RubyGemsyard-solargraph0.1.0indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 120 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

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 statisticsRubyGems.