Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 20:34 UTC

marian13 / convenient_service

Ruby Service Objects with Steps and more.

RubyCustom license★ 43 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Aug 2022View on GitHub ↗
#ruby#service-object#service-object-with-steps

marian13/convenient_service holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Marian KostykPersonal account
28 followers17 public repossince Oct 2016

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?

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

83Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence — 28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 430 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year430
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year28

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~95.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv0.25.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases95.2
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

26At Risk
How it's scored
26.3/60Stars — 43 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars43
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

79Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

49Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.939

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23.3/30PR acceptance — 76/98 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs76
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs22
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

52Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.5/25Owner reach — 28 followers of marian13
21.1/25Track record — 17 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers28
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmarian13
public_repos17
account_age_days3,571
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://userdocs.convenientservice.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, service-object, service-object-with-steps
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://userdocs.convenientservice.org
docs_sitehttps://userdocs.convenientservice.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/28 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
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)

73Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesTaskfile.yml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 11/1,954 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes1,481,374
source_files_sampled1,954
oversized_source_files11

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
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

43GitHub stars
10contributors
430commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 20:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/28 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
9Licenselicense 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 60
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsmutant-license—Gemfile
RubyGemsamazing_print~> 1.5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsappraisal~> 2.5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsawesome_print~> 1.9.2Gemfile
RubyGemsbase64—Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark~> 0.5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips~> 2.14.0Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-memory~> 0.2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsbigdecimal—Gemfile
RubyGemsbreak—Gemfile
RubyGemsbyebug~> 10.0Gemfile
RubyGemsbyebug~> 12.0Gemfile
RubyGemscommonmarker~> 2.6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsdebug—Gemfile
RubyGemsderailed_benchmarks~> 2.1.2Gemfile
RubyGemsderailed_benchmarks~> 2.2.1Gemfile
RubyGemsdiffy~> 3.4.0Gemfile
RubyGemserb~> 5Gemfile
RubyGemsget_process_mem~> 0.2.7Gemfile
RubyGemsfaker—Gemfile
RubyGemsffi~> 1.17.2Gemfile
RubyGemsgem-release—Gemfile
RubyGemsirb~> 1.16.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc~> 7.0Gemfile
RubyGemsi18n~> 1.14.0Gemfile
RubyGemsinch—Gemfile
RubyGemsjson—Gemfile
RubyGemsmemory_profiler—Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest~> 5.27.0Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest~> 5.26.0Gemfile
RubyGemsmutant~> 0.11.21Gemfile
RubyGemsmutant-rspec~> 0.11.21Gemfile
RubyGemsmutex_m—Gemfile
RubyGemsostruct—Gemfile
RubyGemspaint—Gemfile
RubyGemsprogressbar—Gemfile
RubyGemspry~> 0.14.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrackup~> 2.2.1Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 12.3.3Gemfile
RubyGemsrerun—Gemfile
RubyGemsrouge—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 4.0.0.beta1Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.11.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-benchmark~> 0.6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.81.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-magic_numbers~> 0.5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec~> 3.8.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging~> 0.6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-thread_safety~> 0.7.3Gemfile
RubyGemsrubycritic—Gemfile
RubyGemsstandard~> 1.52.0Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov—Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov—Gemfile
RubyGemsshoulda-context~> 2.0.0Gemfile
RubyGemsstackprof~> 0.2.25Gemfile
RubyGemsuri~> 0.13.0Gemfile
RubyGemsuri0.10.0.2Gemfile
RubyGemswebrick~> 1.9.2Gemfile
RubyGemsyard~> 0.9.37Gemfile
RubyGemsyard-junk~> 0.0.10Gemfile
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 39 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsamazing_print—direct
RubyGemsappraisal—direct
RubyGemsawesome_print—direct
RubyGemsbase64—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark-memory—direct
RubyGemsbigdecimal—direct
RubyGemsbreak—direct
RubyGemsbyebug—direct
RubyGemsdebug—direct
RubyGemsderailed_benchmarks—direct
RubyGemsdiffy—direct
RubyGemsfaker—direct
RubyGemsffi—direct
RubyGemsget_process_mem—direct
RubyGemsirb—direct
RubyGemsjson—direct
RubyGemsmemory_profiler—direct
RubyGemsminitest—direct
RubyGemsmutant—direct
RubyGemsmutant-license—direct
RubyGemsmutant-rspec—direct
RubyGemsmutex_m—direct
RubyGemspaint—direct
RubyGemsprogressbar—direct
RubyGemspry—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrdoc—direct
RubyGemsrerun—direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrspec-benchmark—direct
RubyGemsshoulda-context—direct
RubyGemssimplecov—direct
RubyGemssimplecov-lcov—direct
RubyGemsstackprof—direct
RubyGemsuri—direct
RubyGemsuri0.10.0.2direct
RubyGemswebrick—direct
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 marian13/convenient_service. Read them side by side →

99newrelic/newrelic-ruby-agentNew Relic RPM Ruby AgentExceptional99ruby/rubygemsLibrary packaging and distribution for Ruby.Exceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐Star us on GitHubExceptional98rubocop/rubocopA Ruby static code analyzer and formatter, based on the community Ruby style guide.Exceptional98chatwoot/chatwootOpen-source live-chat, email support, omni-channel desk. An alternative to Intercom, Zendesk, Salesforce Service Cloud etc. 🔥💬Exceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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