Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 02:31 UTC

maxveldink / sorbet-schema

Extensible serialization and deserialization to various formats for Sorbet T::Structs

RubyMIT★ 21 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Feb 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

maxveldink/sorbet-schema holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (74/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (55/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Max VelDinkPersonal account
42 followers13 public repossince Apr 2015Shopify

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
RubyGemssorbet-schema0.11.0-220 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18Commit volume — 20 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year20
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~91.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv0.11.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases91.7
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.1/60Stars — 21 stars
5/25Forks — 5 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars21
watchers4
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
65.6/80Total downloads — 2,048,926 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessorbet-schema
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads2,048,926
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 70% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.7
How it's scored
28.5/42Issue resolution — 68% of issues closed
19.9/30PR acceptance — 89/134 decided PRs merged
9.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs89
open_issues9
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d11
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.679
closed_unmerged_prs45
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.7/25Owner reach — 42 followers of maxveldink
20.3/25Track record — 13 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers42
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmaxveldink
public_repos13
account_age_days4,210
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 22 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessorbet-schema
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 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
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, ruby-gem, sorbet, sorbet-static
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 21 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 — 15 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
advisories14
affected_packages4
assessed_packages71
unassessed_packages6
affected_by_severityhigh 4
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 71 resolved dependencies against OSV. 6 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 95 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,699
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/116 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes13,520
source_files_sampled116
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

21GitHub stars
6contributors
20commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
9open 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 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks
3Releases

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.

12345512024-092025-092026-10
Major 0Minor 1Patch 2

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-12 02:31 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
7CI-Tests21 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 77

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivemodel8.1.2indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord8.1.2indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.2indirect
RubyGemsansi1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips2.14.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.6indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscsv—indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsdebug1.9.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.7.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.14.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.7.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.3indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest-focus1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest-reporters1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsmsgpack—indirect
RubyGemsmsgpack1.8.4indirect
RubyGemsnetrc0.11.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.28.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.1.2indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrbi0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrdoc6.7.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.9.2indirect
RubyGemsreline0.5.9indirect
RubyGemsrequire-hooks0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.64.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.31.3indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-sorbet0.7.8indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrubydex0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssorbet0.6.13543indirect
RubyGemssorbet-result—indirect
RubyGemssorbet-result1.1.0indirect
RubyGemssorbet-runtime—indirect
RubyGemssorbet-runtime0.6.13543indirect
RubyGemssorbet-static0.6.13543indirect
RubyGemssorbet-static-and-runtime0.6.13543indirect
RubyGemssorbet-struct-comparable—indirect
RubyGemssorbet-struct-comparable1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsspoom1.8.10indirect
RubyGemssqlite32.9.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard1.39.1indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard-sorbet0.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsstrscan3.1.0indirect
RubyGemstapioca0.20.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.6.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.5.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.6.16indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 71 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport8.1.2indirecthigh38.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.3.6indirecthigh31.3.7
rexml3.3.1indirecthigh53.3.9
sqlite32.9.0indirecthigh32.9.6

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.