Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 01:52 UTC
maxmind / GeoIP2-ruby
Ruby API for GeoIP2 webservice client and database reader
maxmind/GeoIP2-ruby holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (56/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.
92
overall / 100Software 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.
92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
MaxMindOrganization
325 followers100 public repossince Nov 2011
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RubyGems | maxmind-geoip2 | 1.6.0 | - | 15 | 0 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
94
Development activity
96Exceptional
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 31.8/36 | Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 264 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 264 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 46 |
Release discipline
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 5 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 0 days ago |
| 19.8/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~109.1 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 5 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.6.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 0 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 109.1 |
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?
56
Popularity & adoption
40Weak
How it's scored
| 30.4/60 | Stars — 76 stars |
| 4/25 | Forks — 4 forks |
| 5.6/15 | Watchers — 11 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 4 |
| stars | 76 |
| watchers | 11 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
50Moderate
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 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 |
Ecosystem adoption (downloads)
89Excellent
How it's scored
| 71.4/80 | Total downloads — 7,493,382 downloads all-time across rubygems |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
Inputs used
| packages | maxmind-geoip2 |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | rubygems |
| total_downloads | 7,493,382 |
| 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?
84
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
56Moderate
How it's scored
| 25.2/54 | Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 11.5/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 49% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 14 contributors |
| 6/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 2 |
| contributors_sampled | 14 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.487 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
99Exceptional
How it's scored
| 42/42 | Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed |
| 29.2/30 | PR acceptance — 195/200 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 15/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 195 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 6 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 1 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 5 |
| 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
91Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 18.1/25 | Owner reach — 325 followers of maxmind |
| 25/25 | Track record — 100 public repos, account ~14 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 325 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | maxmind |
| public_repos | 100 |
| account_age_days | 5,364 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 15 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | maxmind-geoip2 |
| ecosystems | rubygems |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 0 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
76
Engineering practices
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 5 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — .rubocop.yml |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
65Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://rubygems.org/gems/maxmind-geoip2 |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 4 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | geoip2, geoip, mmdb, maxmind |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://rubygems.org/gems/maxmind-geoip2 |
| docs_site | https://rubygems.org/gems/maxmind-geoip2 |
| 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?
77
Security posture
77Good
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0.8/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| 1.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
| 5/5 | SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 6.8/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 16 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 2 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 7.7 |
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.
76
Agent context & guidance
75Good
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | — |
| agent_instruction_files | CLAUDE.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 11,459 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — mise.toml |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | Gemfile.lock |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | mise.toml |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. 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 — 0/34 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Ruby |
| largest_source_bytes | 16,057 |
| source_files_sampled | 34 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Key facts
76GitHub stars
14contributors
264commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
5releases
2bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.7 / 10
7.7aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 1 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 10 | Code-Review | all changesets reviewed |
| 6 | Contributors | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 10 | Dependency-Update-Tool | update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 10 | Pinned-Dependencies | all dependencies are pinned |
| 10 | SAST | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 9 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
All dependencies 49
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| RubyGems | addressable | 2.9.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | ast | 2.4.3 | indirect |
| RubyGems | bigdecimal | 4.1.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | connection_pool | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | connection_pool | 3.0.2 | indirect |
| RubyGems | crack | 1.0.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | domain_name | 0.6.20240107 | indirect |
| RubyGems | drb | 2.2.3 | indirect |
| RubyGems | ffi | 1.17.4 | indirect |
| RubyGems | ffi-compiler | 1.3.2 | indirect |
| RubyGems | hashdiff | 1.2.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | http | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | http | 6.0.3 | indirect |
| RubyGems | http-cookie | 1.1.6 | indirect |
| RubyGems | json | 2.20.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | language_server-protocol | 3.17.0.6 | indirect |
| RubyGems | lint_roller | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | llhttp | 0.6.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | llhttp-ffi | 0.5.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | maxmind-db | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | maxmind-db | 1.4.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | minitest | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | minitest | 6.0.6 | indirect |
| RubyGems | parallel | 1.28.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | parser | 3.3.11.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | prism | 1.9.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | public_suffix | 7.0.5 | indirect |
| RubyGems | racc | 1.8.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rainbow | 3.1.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rake | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | rake | 13.4.2 | indirect |
| RubyGems | regexp_parser | 2.12.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rexml | 3.4.4 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop | 1.88.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-ast | 1.50.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-minitest | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-minitest | 0.39.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-performance | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-performance | 1.26.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-rake | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-rake | 0.7.1 | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-thread_safety | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | rubocop-thread_safety | 0.7.3 | indirect |
| RubyGems | ruby-progressbar | 1.13.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | unicode-display_width | 3.2.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | unicode-emoji | 4.2.0 | indirect |
| RubyGems | webmock | — | indirect |
| RubyGems | webmock | 3.26.2 | indirect |
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — RubyGems.