Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 02:18 UTC

mailtrap / mailtrap-ruby

The official mailtrap.io Ruby client

RubyMIT★ 28 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗

mailtrap/mailtrap-ruby holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mailtrap.ioOrganization
117 followers34 public repossince Aug 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsmailtrap2.16.0-3213 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
23.5/36Commit cadence34/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume244 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_year244
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year34

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 13 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~18.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv2.16.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release13
mean_days_between_releases18.2
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.2/60Stars28 stars
7/25Forks8 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars28
watchers10
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
58.7/80Total downloads449,337 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmailtrap
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads449,337
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?

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.308
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
24.6/30PR acceptance91/111 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs91
open_issues0
closed_issues16
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs20
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14.9/25Owner reach117 followers of mailtrap
13.3/25Track record34 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers117
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmailtrap
public_repos34
account_age_days383

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 13 days ago
20/20Version history32 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmailtrap
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish13

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests10 out of 10 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://mailtrap.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsactionmailer, email, mail, mailtrap-io, rails, ruby
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://mailtrap.io
docs_sitehttps://mailtrap.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 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-Tests10 out of 10 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
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities30 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
11.1/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories3 affected: rack 3.2.4 (high 7.5), mail 2.9.0 (moderate 5.3), yard 0.9.38 (moderate 5.3)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
30.3/40No advisories left outstanding2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 208 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories30
affected_packages7
assessed_packages59
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severityhigh 4, moderate 3
direct_affected_packages3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 59 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://mailtrap.io/llms.txt)
24.4/40Legible commit history43 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://mailtrap.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.457
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/182 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes15,987
source_files_sampled182
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

28GitHub stars
15contributors
244commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
7releases
3bus 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 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks

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.

02468812024-122025-072026-03

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 02:18 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-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
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
0Vulnerabilities30 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisalGemfile
RubyGemsirbGemfile
RubyGemsmailGemfile
RubyGemsnet-smtpGemfile
RubyGemsrackGemfile
RubyGemsrackupGemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 13.3Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc~> 7.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-itsGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.82Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rakeGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecGemfile
RubyGemsvcrGemfile
RubyGemswebmockGemfile
RubyGemswebrickGemfile
RubyGemsyard~> 0.9Gemfile
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal2.5.0direct
RubyGemsirb1.16.0direct
RubyGemsmail2.9.0direct
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.1direct
RubyGemsrack3.2.4direct
RubyGemsrackup2.3.1direct
RubyGemsrake13.3.1direct
RubyGemsrdoc7.1.0direct
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2direct
RubyGemsrspec-its2.0.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.84.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.9.0direct
RubyGemsvcr6.4.0direct
RubyGemswebmock3.26.1direct
RubyGemswebrick1.9.2direct
RubyGemsyard0.9.38direct
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.8indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.0.1indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.1indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.18.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.6.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.10.1indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.3.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.2indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.6.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 59 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
rack3.2.4directhigh153.2.6
addressable2.8.8indirecthigh12.9.0
erb6.0.1indirecthigh16.0.4
json2.18.0indirecthigh22.19.9
mail2.9.0directmoderate12.9.1
yard0.9.38directmoderate20.9.44
net-imap0.6.2indirectmoderate80.6.4.1

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 statisticsRubyGems.