Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 12:23 UTC

mrexox / sentry-sanitizer

Sanitizing middleware for sentry-ruby gem

RubyBSD-3-Clause★ 10 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Feb 2021View on GitHub ↗

mrexox/sentry-sanitizer holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (70/100) and lowest on Security (35/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Valentin KiselevPersonal account
54 followers84 public repossince Jul 2016

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
RubyGemssentry-sanitizer0.9.0-200 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18Commit volume — 14 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year14
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 321 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~192.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv0.8.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release321
mean_days_between_releases192.4
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars — 10 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars10
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, coveralls.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58.1/80Total downloads — 393,241 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessentry-sanitizer
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads393,241
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.878
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
20/30PR acceptance — 12/18 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs12
open_issues0
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs6
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
12.5/25Owner reach — 54 followers of mrexox
25/25Track record — 84 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers54
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmrexox
public_repos84
account_age_days3,753
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 — 20 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessentry-sanitizer
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssentry-ruby, sentry-sanitizer, sentry, sentry-plugin, ruby, sanitizer
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?

35Weak · 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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/30 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
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 30 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate2.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: rack 2.2.3.1 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,362 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories30
affected_packages1
assessed_packages38
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 38 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

45Weak · 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://docs.sentry.io/llms.txt)
29.4/40Legible commit history — 27 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.sentry.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.551
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 49
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
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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 — 0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes25,755
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

10GitHub stars
4contributors
14commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
7Releases

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.

1223344412021-022023-072025-11
Major 0Minor 4Patch 3

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.8 / 10
2.8aggregate

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 12:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
0Vulnerabilities30 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemssentry-ruby—Gemfile
RubyGemslogger—Gemfile
RubyGemsbase64—Gemfile
RubyGemscgi—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.28.2Gemfile
RubyGemsbundler>= 2.3Gemfile
RubyGemsrack—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 12Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.0Gemfile
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbase640.3.0direct
RubyGemscgi0.5.2direct
RubyGemslogger1.7.0direct
RubyGemsrack2.2.3.1direct
RubyGemsrake12.3.3direct
RubyGemsrspec3.11.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.28.2direct
RubyGemssentry-ruby—direct
RubyGemssentry-ruby6.7.0direct
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.4indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsjson3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.47.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.18.5indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.12.3indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.2indirect
Dependency advisories 1

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: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
rack2.2.3.1directhigh303.2.6

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.