Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-30 17:57 UTC

logtail / logtail-ruby-rails

Better Stack Rails client

RubyCustom license★ 19 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Feb 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolPluginNetwork servicehow this is determined

logtail/logtail-ruby-rails holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (67/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

52 followers13 public repossince Feb 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemslogtail-rails0.2.14-230 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume — 6 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share0.973
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 15 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~90.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagv0.2.14
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases90.3
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.4/60Stars — 19 stars
5.8/25Forks — 6 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars19
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61.9/80Total downloads — 899,077 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslogtail-rails
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads899,077
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.556
How it's scored
30.8/42Issue resolution — 73% of issues closed
27.2/30PR acceptance — 39/43 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs39
open_issues4
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.733
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
12.4/25Owner reach — 52 followers of logtail
19.6/25Track record — 13 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers52
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginlogtail
public_repos13
account_age_days2,057

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 23 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslogtail-rails
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://betterstack.com/logs
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslogging, logtail, rails, ruby, ruby-gem, ruby-on-rails
has_wikino
homepagehttps://betterstack.com/logs
docs_sitehttps://betterstack.com/logs
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
22.4/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: sqlite3 1.3.13 (moderate 4.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages30
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 30 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.2/40Legible commit history — 34 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.472
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 74 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.054
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/84 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes5,290
source_files_sampled84
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

19GitHub stars
10contributors
6commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
8Releases

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.

123456612022-102023-092024-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 7

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-30 17:57 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
2CI-Tests4 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 12/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrails~> 8.1.0.rc1example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemssprockets-rails—example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3~> 2.1example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemspuma~> 6.4example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemsimportmap-rails—example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemsturbo-rails—example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemsstimulus-rails—example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemsjbuilder—example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemsredis~> 4.0example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemstzinfo-data—example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemsbootsnap—example-project/Gemfile
RubyGemslogtail-rails~> 0.2.12example-project/Gemfile
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbootsnap—direct
RubyGemsimportmap-rails—direct
RubyGemsjbuilder—direct
RubyGemslogtail-rails—direct
RubyGemspuma—direct
RubyGemsrails—direct
RubyGemsredis—direct
RubyGemssprockets-rails—direct
RubyGemssqlite3—direct
RubyGemssqlite31.3.13direct
RubyGemsstimulus-rails—direct
RubyGemsturbo-rails—direct
RubyGemsactionpack—indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord—indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapter—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark—indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemsbundler-audit—indirect
RubyGemscapybara—indirect
RubyGemslogtail—indirect
RubyGemslogtail-rack—indirect
RubyGemsrails_stdout_logging—indirect
RubyGemsrailties—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-its—indirect
RubyGemsselenium-webdriver—indirect
RubyGemstimecop—indirect
RubyGemsweb-console—indirect
RubyGemswebdrivers—indirect
RubyGemswebmock—indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 30 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
sqlite31.3.13directmoderate12.9.5

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.