Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 09:07 UTC

mongodb / mongoid

The Official Ruby Object Mapper for MongoDB

RubyMIT★ 3,912 stars⑂ 1,383 forkssince Sep 2009View on GitHub ↗

mongodb/mongoid holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Security (67/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

mongodbOrganization
4,677 followers306 public repossince Jan 2009

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsmongoid9.1.0-357107 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 6 days ago
24.9/36Commit cadence36/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18Commit volume72 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year72
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year36
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 111 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~32 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv9.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release111
mean_days_between_releases32

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

85Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
58.3/60Stars3,912 stars
25/25Forks1,383 forks
11.1/15Watchers101 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,383
stars3,912
watchers101
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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
79.9/80Total downloads48,601,955 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmongoid
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads48,601,955
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 59 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.604
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
21/30PR acceptance1,970/2,814 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs1,970
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs844
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach4,677 followers of mongodb
25/25Track record306 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers4,677
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmongodb
public_repos306
account_age_days6,440

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 107 days ago
20/20Version history357 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmongoid
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish107

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 sitehttps://www.mongodb.com/docs/mongoid
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmongodb, ruby, ruby-on-rails, mongodb-driver, orm, orm-framework
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.mongodb.com/docs/mongoid
docs_sitehttps://www.mongodb.com/docs/mongoid
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 59 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

69Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://www.mongodb.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history92 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://www.mongodb.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.92
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,748
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
6/10Demonstrated agent practice3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
54.3/55Manageable file sizes13/1,036 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes156,044
source_files_sampled1,036
oversized_source_files13
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
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

3,912GitHub stars
100contributors
72commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,383 ⇿
0Stars
1,383Forks
100Releases

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.

2004006008001,0001,2001,4001,383132011-112019-042026-08
Major 2Minor 12Patch 83

Each point covers 14 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 · 2026-08-28 09:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 59 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsactionpackGemfile
RubyGemsactivemodelGemfile
RubyGemsi18nGemfile
RubyGemstzinfo-dataGemfile
RubyGemsostructGemfile
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactionpackdirect
RubyGemsactivemodeldirect
RubyGemsostructdirect
RubyGemsbsonindirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-rubyindirect
RubyGemsmongoindirect
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 statisticsRubyGems.