Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 23:42 UTC

leahneukirchen / bacon

a small RSpec clone

RubyCustom license★ 424 stars⑂ 70 forksgrowth anomalysince Oct 2008View on GitHub ↗

leahneukirchen/bacon holds a health index of 23 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (55/100) and lowest on Vitality (1/100). It was last updated 1372 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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.

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)

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 33 is calibrated to 27 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Leah NeukirchenPersonal account

1,509 followers212 public repossince Feb 2008

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
RubyGems	baconpoints to another repo — not scored	1.2.0	-	4	4960 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

1Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 1403 daysautomated commits excludedpull requests left unansweredOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintained

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 1,372 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	1,372
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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?

42Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

40Weak

Growth anomaly alert

Inorganic growth pattern detected

130 stars in a single day, 130× the baseline2008-10-04No decay — the burst stopped deadThe project has never published a releasePopularity & adoption: stars and forks discounted by 40%

Based on the timing of public star and fork events. It describes a pattern that organic attention does not produce; it does not establish that attention was purchased, or that the maintainers were involved.

How growth authenticity is assessed

How it's scored

25.6/60	Stars — 424 stars, discounted for inorganic growth: 130 stars over 1 day(s) from 2008-10-04, 130× the repository's own daily baseline
9.2/25	Forks — 70 forks, discounted for inorganic growth: 130 stars over 1 day(s) from 2008-10-04, 130× the repository's own daily baseline
5.6/15	Watchers — 11 watchers

Inputs used

forks	70
stars	424
watchers	11
growth_state	anomalous
growth_signals	acquisition_burst, missing_decay, no_released_substance
growth_windows	2008-10-04/2008-10-04
growth_peak_days	1
growth_factor_pct	60
growth_peak_stars	130
growth_peak_window	2008-10-04
growth_peak_multiple	130
growth_top_days_share	0.337
growth_baseline_per_day	1
growth_history_complete	yes

Inorganic Growth Policy discounts the stars and forks components by 40%. The finding describes the timing of public star and fork events; it does not establish that attention was purchased, or that the maintainers were involved.

Community health

44Weak

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	13
top_contributor_share	0.716

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate

How it's scored

32.3/42	Issue resolution — 77% of issues closed
13.5/30	PR acceptance — 9/20 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	9
open_issues	3
closed_issues	10
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.769
closed_unmerged_prs	11
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

72Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22.9/25	Owner reach — 1,509 followers of leahneukirchen
25/25	Track record — 212 public repos, account ~18 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,509
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	leahneukirchen
public_repos	212
account_age_days	6,743

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://rubyforge.org/projects/test-spec/
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	http://rubyforge.org/projects/test-spec/
docs_site	http://rubyforge.org/projects/test-spec/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

9Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.1/40	Legible commit history — 17 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.17
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

24At Risk

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

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

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/7 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Ruby
largest_source_bytes	11,878
source_files_sampled	7
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

424GitHub stars

13contributors

0commits, last 12 months

1,372days since last push

0releases

1bus factor

3open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

rubygems package 'bacon' points at a different repository (http://github.com/chneukirchen/bacon); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 424 ★ / 70 ⇿

424Stars

70Forks

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.

The shaded band marks the burst the Inorganic Growth Policy confirmed. How growth authenticity is assessed

Each point covers 17 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10

3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 23:42 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 7/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation

Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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.

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — RubyGems.