Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 22:06 UTC

masutaka / circleci-bundle-update-pr

Provide continues bundle update using CircleCI

RubyMIT★ 120 stars⑂ 17 forkssince Feb 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

masutaka/circleci-bundle-update-pr holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (53/100). It was last updated 14 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Takashi MasudaPersonal account
137 followers109 public repossince Dec 2009

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscircleci-bundle-update-pr5.2.7-10014 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 14 days ago
16.6/36Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits
17.8/18Commit volume — 95 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year95
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push14
active_weeks_last_year24

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 66 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 14 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~29.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count66
latest_release_tagv5.2.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release14
mean_days_between_releases29.8
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
33.7/60Stars — 120 stars
10/25Forks — 17 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars120
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
56.7/80Total downloads — 283,919 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescircleci-bundle-update-pr
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads283,919
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.941
How it's scored
38/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
25.8/30PR acceptance — 210/244 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs210
open_issues2
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.905
closed_unmerged_prs34
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.4/25Owner reach — 137 followers of masutaka
25/25Track record — 109 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers137
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmasutaka
public_repos109
account_age_days6,113
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 14 days ago
20/20Version history — 100 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescircleci-bundle-update-pr
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish14

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 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 site — https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/circleci-bundle-update-pr/5.2.7
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby-gem, circleci, github
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/circleci-bundle-update-pr/5.2.7
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6/7.5Token-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_aggregate6.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages38
unassessed_packages8
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 38 resolved dependencies against OSV. 8 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://circleci.com/llms.txt)
37.3/40Legible commit history — 63 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://circleci.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.7
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 environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 8 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
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_share0.08
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes9,095
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

120GitHub stars
17contributors
95commits, last 12 months
14days since last push
66releases
1bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 17 ⇿
0Stars
17Forks
42Releases

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.

0481216201712015-092020-022024-08
Major 4Minor 14Patch 24

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.7 / 10
6.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 22:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests14 out of 14 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 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
8Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemscompare_linker—indirect
RubyGemscompare_linker1.4.11indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsoctokit—indirect
RubyGemsoctokit10.0.0indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.90.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 38 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 8 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 statistics — RubyGems.