Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-24 18:09 UTC

mbleigh / acts-as-taggable-on

A tagging plugin for Rails applications that allows for custom tagging along dynamic contexts.

RubyMIT★ 4,987 stars⑂ 1,191 forkssince Mar 2008View on GitHub ↗

mbleigh/acts-as-taggable-on holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated 24 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Michael BleighPersonal account
1,025 followers161 public repossince Feb 2008@firebase (@google)

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
RubyGemsacts-as-taggable-on13.0.0-83353 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

52Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 24 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume — 25 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push24
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,443 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~137.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv5.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,443
mean_days_between_releases137.7
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?

88Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 4,987 stars
25/25Forks — 1,191 forks
10.2/15Watchers — 70 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,191
stars4,987
watchers70
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 71,605,605 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesacts-as-taggable-on
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads71,605,605
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?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 66 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.313
How it's scored
38.2/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
17.8/30PR acceptance — 274/463 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 19/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs274
open_issues64
closed_issues645
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.91
closed_unmerged_prs189
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
21.6/25Owner reach — 1,025 followers of mbleigh
25/25Track record — 161 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,025
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmbleigh
public_repos161
account_age_days6,814
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 353 days ago
20/20Version history — 83 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesacts-as-taggable-on
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish353

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://mbleigh.lighthouseapp.com/projects/10116-acts-as-taggable-on
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://mbleigh.lighthouseapp.com/projects/10116-acts-as-taggable-on
docs_sitehttp://mbleigh.lighthouseapp.com/projects/10116-acts-as-taggable-on
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
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
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 19/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 66 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 28 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_aggregate4.9
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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 79 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.79
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/60 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes33,802
source_files_sampled60
oversized_source_files0
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 — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

4,987GitHub stars
100contributors
25commits, last 12 months
24days since last push
9releases
2bus factor
64open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-05-18: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 4987 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 4,992 ★ / 1,191 ⇿
4,992Stars
1,191Forks
9Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-05-18. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0004,9921,191162011-012018-112026-10
Major 1Minor 1Patch 7

Each point covers 15 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-24 18:09 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests11 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 19/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 66 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained6 commit(s) and 28 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 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisal—Gemfile
RubyGemsbarrier—Gemfile
RubyGemsbyebug—Gemfile
RubyGemsdatabase_cleaner—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-its—Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3—Gemfile
RubyGemsguard-rspec—Gemfile
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal—direct
RubyGemsbarrier—direct
RubyGemsbyebug—direct
RubyGemsdatabase_cleaner—direct
RubyGemsguard-rspec—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrspec-its—direct
RubyGemsrspec-rails—direct
RubyGemssqlite3—direct
RubyGemsactiverecord—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.