Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 17:46 UTC

msgpack / msgpack-ruby

MessagePack implementation for Ruby / msgpack.org[Ruby]

Ruby · C · JavaApache-2.0★ 789 stars⑂ 124 forkssince Sep 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#msgpack

msgpack/msgpack-ruby holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (29/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MessagePackOrganization
274 followers22 public repossince Feb 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsmsgpack1.8.3-26037 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 7 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
13.8/18Commit volume — 33 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year33
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 68 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 37 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~129.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count68
latest_release_tagv1.8.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release37
mean_days_between_releases129.9
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?

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

72Good
How it's scored
47/60Stars — 789 stars
17.4/25Forks — 124 forks
7.1/15Watchers — 20 watchers
Inputs used
forks124
stars789
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 496,801,628 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmsgpack
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads496,801,628
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?

84Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

75Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 77 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 82 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled77
top_contributor_share0.318

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
41.3/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance — 217/276 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs217
open_issues2
closed_issues118
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.983
closed_unmerged_prs59
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

87Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
17.5/25Owner reach — 274 followers of msgpack
21.9/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers274
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginmsgpack
public_repos22
account_age_days6,005
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 37 days ago
20/20Version history — 260 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmsgpack
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish37

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

78Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://msgpack.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmsgpack
has_wikino
homepagehttp://msgpack.org/
docs_sitehttp://msgpack.org/
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

Security posture

49Weak
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 — 7 out of 9 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 82 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 — 23 commit(s) and 0 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

29At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/82 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes28,966
source_files_sampled82
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

789GitHub stars
77contributors
33commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
68releases
3bus factor
2open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-17 17:46 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-Tests7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 6/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 82 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained23 commit(s) and 0 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 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrubocop~> 0.82.0Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake-compiler>= 1.1.9Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.3Gemfile
RubyGemsruby_memcheck—Gemfile
RubyGemsyard—Gemfile
RubyGemsjson—Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—Gemfile
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—direct
RubyGemsjson—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrake-compiler—direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrubocop—direct
RubyGemsruby_memcheck—direct
RubyGemssimplecov—direct
RubyGemsyard—direct
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with msgpack/msgpack-ruby. Read them side by side →

94nlohmann/jsonJSON for Modern C++Exceptional88msgspec/msgspecA fast serialization and validation library, with builtin support for JSON, MessagePack, YAML, and TOMLExcellent87AArnott/Nerdbank.MessagePackA feature-packed .NET MessagePack serialization library with great performance and simplicity. msgpack.io[C#]Excellent87ormsgpack/ormsgpackMessagePack serialization library for Python derived from orjson, written in Rust using PyO3Excellent86msgpack/msgpack-pythonMessagePack serializer implementation for Python msgpack.org[Python]Excellent86Fatal1ty/mashumaroFast and well tested serialization libraryExcellent

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — RubyGems.