Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-23 03:06 UTC

open-feature / ruby-sdk

Ruby implementation of the OpenFeature SDK

RubyApache-2.0★ 43 stars⑂ 18 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

open-feature/ruby-sdk 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 Engineering Quality (67/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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

OpenFeatureOrganization · verified domain
1,554 followers60 public repossince Feb 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsopenfeature-sdk0.6.7-190 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 recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 125 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year125
human_commit_share0.33
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 20 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~31 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv0.6.7
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases31
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
26.3/60Stars — 43 stars
10.3/25Forks — 18 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks18
stars43
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
64.1/80Total downloads — 1,461,592 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesopenfeature-sdk
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads1,461,592
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.455
How it's scored
37.6/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance — 264/293 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs264
open_issues5
closed_issues43
prs_merged_7d11
prs_decided_7d11
prs_merged_30d11
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.896
closed_unmerged_prs29
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
22.9/25Owner reach — 1,554 followers of open-feature
22.4/25Track record — 60 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,554
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginopen-feature
public_repos60
account_age_days1,714

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 — 19 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesopenfeature-sdk
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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 — https://openfeature.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, openfeature, sdk
has_wikino
homepagehttps://openfeature.dev
docs_sitehttps://openfeature.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

80Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: InProgress
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_aggregate7.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages70
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 70 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://openfeature.dev/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 33 of 33 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://openfeature.dev/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,986
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 23 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 67 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.23
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.67
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/76 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes46,093
source_files_sampled76
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 — examples
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

43GitHub stars
13contributors
125commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
20releases
2bus factor
5open 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 ★ / 18 ⇿
0Stars
18Forks
15Releases

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.

0481216201812023-092025-032026-09
Major 0Minor 5Patch 10

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.5 / 10
7.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-23 03:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-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
2CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
1Code-ReviewFound 2/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 70

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 70 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.3indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemscucumber11.1.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-ci-environment11.0.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-core16.2.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-cucumber-expressions19.0.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-gherkin39.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-html-formatter23.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-messages32.3.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-tag-expressions8.1.0indirect
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.7indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.4indirect
RubyGemsfileutils1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.9.4indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjson3.1.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslisten3.10.1indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmarkly0.19.0indirect
RubyGemsmemoist31.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_test1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.1.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.13.1indirect
RubyGemsreline0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.91.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov1.3.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura4.0.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard1.57.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.9.0indirect
RubyGemssteep2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsstrscan3.1.8indirect
RubyGemssys-uname1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table4.0.0indirect
RubyGemstimecop0.9.11indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.3.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.2indirect
RubyGemswin32ole1.9.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 70 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.