Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 15:00 UTC

pact-foundation / pact-ruby

Enables consumer driven contract testing, providing a mock service and DSL for the consumer project, and interaction playback and verification for the service provider project.

RubyMIT★ 2,194 stars⑂ 220 forkssince Nov 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#hacktoberfest#contract-testing#smartbear-supported#pact

pact-foundation/pact-ruby holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Pact FoundationOrganization
394 followers86 public repossince Sep 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemspact2.0.1-16932 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
17.1/18Commit volume — 79 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year79
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 32 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~57.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv2.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release32
mean_days_between_releases57.1
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?

83Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

84Excellent
How it's scored
54.2/60Stars — 2,194 stars
19.5/25Forks — 220 forks
10/15Watchers — 64 watchers
Inputs used
forks220
stars2,194
watchers64
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional
How it's scored
78.6/80Total downloads — 36,573,298 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespact
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads36,573,298
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?

74Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 77% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 71 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled71
top_contributor_share0.767

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good
How it's scored
41.1/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
22/30PR acceptance — 161/220 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs161
open_issues4
closed_issues180
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.978
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

92Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
18.7/25Owner reach — 394 followers of pact-foundation
25/25Track record — 86 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers394
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginpact-foundation
public_repos86
account_age_days3,952
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 32 days ago
20/20Version history — 169 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespact
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish32

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

66Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://pact.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest, contract-testing, smartbear-supported, pact
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://pact.io
docs_sitehttps://pact.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate
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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 14 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 — 15 commit(s) and 5 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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

34At 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)

27At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
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_configno
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 — 0/125 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes24,911
source_files_sampled125
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — spec/internal/deps/services/pet_store/grpc/pet_store.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesspec/internal/deps/services/pet_store/grpc/pet_store.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,194GitHub stars
71contributors
79commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
4open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 14:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 7/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 5 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 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisal~> 2.5Gemfile
RubyGemspact-ffi—Gemfile
RubyGemspry-byebug—Gemfile
RubyGemsbase64—Gemfile
RubyGemscsv—Gemfile
RubyGemsmutex_m—Gemfile
All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal—direct
RubyGemsbase64—direct
RubyGemscsv—direct
RubyGemsmutex_m—direct
RubyGemspact-ffi—direct
RubyGemspry-byebug—direct
RubyGemsbump—indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemscombustion—indirect
RubyGemsconventional-changelog—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry—indirect
RubyGemsgruf—indirect
RubyGemsgruf-rspec—indirect
RubyGemshttparty—indirect
RubyGemskarafka-rdkafka—indirect
RubyGemsostruct—indirect
RubyGemspact—indirect
RubyGemspact_broker-client—indirect
RubyGemspry—indirect
RubyGemsrack—indirect
RubyGemsrack-proxy—indirect
RubyGemsrackup—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails—indirect
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemssbmt-kafka_consumer—indirect
RubyGemssbmt-kafka_producer—indirect
RubyGemssequel—indirect
RubyGemssinatra—indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—indirect
RubyGemsstandard—indirect
RubyGemsvcr—indirect
RubyGemswebmock—indirect
RubyGemswebrick—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
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.

Related records

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

99newrelic/newrelic-ruby-agentNew Relic RPM Ruby AgentExceptional99open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rubyOpenTelemetry Ruby API & SDK, and related gemsExceptional98DataDog/dd-trace-rbDatadog's client library for RubyExceptional98rubocop/rubocopA Ruby static code analyzer and formatter, based on the community Ruby style guide.Exceptional98mattermost/mattermost-mobileNext generation iOS and Android apps for Mattermost in React NativeExceptional98rapid7/metasploit-frameworkMetasploit FrameworkExceptional

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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