# nishidayuya/pandoc_binary_gem — health index 48/100 (Weak)

> Inspection of the public repository nishidayuya/pandoc_binary_gem by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/nishidayuya/pandoc_binary_gem
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/nishidayuya/pandoc_binary_gem
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/nishidayuya/pandoc_binary_gem/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/n/nishidayuya/pandoc_binary_gem.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-15
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 31/100 | At Risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 50/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 40/100 | Weak |
| Security | 16% | 60/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 37/100 | Weak |

The weighted overall 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Classification | library, cli |
| Homepage | https://rubygems.org/gems/pandoc_binary |
| Primary language | Ruby |
| Stars | 1 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2022-04-16 |
| Last push | 2026-09-09 |
| Latest release | v3.2.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 19 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | pandoc, ruby |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| rubygems | pandoc_binary | 3.11 | — |

## Vitality — 64/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 58/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 5 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 4.8 / 36 | 7/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 11.7 / 18 | 19 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 16 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 5 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | a release every ~204.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 10 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 31/100 (At Risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 1 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

### Community health — 44/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 60/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total downloads | partial | 47.9 / 80 | 40,392 downloads all-time across rubygems |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 50/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 12/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 51/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | not met | 0 / 42 | 0% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 33/33 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 56/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 9.8 / 25 | 22 followers of nishidayuya |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 149 public repos, account ~17 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on rubygems |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 10 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 42 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 40/100 (Weak)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 30/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 3 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://rubygems.org/gems/pandoc_binary |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 2 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 60/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | met | 25 / 25 | Gemfile.lock |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 5 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 37/100 (Weak)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 38 of 38 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 27/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 6 / 10 | 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 31 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Ruby without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/2 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/nishidayuya/pandoc_binary_gem: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-15T13:36:44Z. Please include `B9FC:318B2:9D2C98D:994BAF2:6AA949EA` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt