Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 17:08 UTC

patvice / ruby_llm-mcp

Full-featured MCP support for Ruby and RubyLLM—making it easy to build structured, composable LLM workflows in pure Ruby.

RubyMIT★ 261 stars⑂ 32 forkssince May 2025View on GitHub ↗

patvice/ruby_llm-mcp holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (83/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated 52 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
overall / 100
Good

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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Patrick VicePersonal account
26 followers49 public repossince Nov 2013@Fullscript

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
RubyGemsruby_llm-mcp1.0.1-2152 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 52 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 196 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year196
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push52
active_weeks_last_year12

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 52 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~41.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv1.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release52
mean_days_between_releases41.3
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.2/60Stars — 261 stars
12.4/25Forks — 32 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks32
stars261
watchers4
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
56.6/80Total downloads — 280,284 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesruby_llm-mcp
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads280,284
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.937
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 98/106 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs98
open_issues8
closed_issues40
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs8
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
10.3/25Owner reach — 26 followers of patvice
24.4/25Track record — 49 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers26
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginpatvice
public_repos49
account_age_days4,674
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 52 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesruby_llm-mcp
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish52

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

83Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 14 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rubyllm-mcp.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, mcp, mcp-clients, rails, ruby, llms, ruby-llm
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.rubyllm-mcp.com/
docs_sitehttps://www.rubyllm-mcp.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 14 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 19 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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 71 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.9
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.

69Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — docs/guides/agents.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.9/40Legible commit history — 41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.41
agent_instruction_filesdocs/guides/agents.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,351
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
11/11Static type checking — examples/mcp_app/test_server/tsconfig.json, spec/fixtures/pagination-server/tsconfig.json, spec/fixtures/typescript-mcp/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsexamples/mcp_app/test_server/tsconfig.json, spec/fixtures/pagination-server/tsconfig.json, spec/fixtures/typescript-mcp/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Ruby with type-check config (examples/mcp_app/test_server/tsconfig.json, spec/fixtures/pagination-server/tsconfig.json, spec/fixtures/typescript-mcp/tsconfig.json)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/255 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes85,661
source_files_sampled255
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

261GitHub stars
13contributors
196commits, last 12 months
52days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
8open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-03: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 261 stars today.
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 254 ★ / 32 ⇿
254Stars
32Forks
16Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-03. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

05010015020025030025432382025-052026-012026-09
Major 1Minor 6Patch 9

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 17:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests10 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 6/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 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
0Vulnerabilities71 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsactivesupport—Gemfile
RubyGemsbundler>= 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsdebug—Gemfile
RubyGemsdotenv>= 3.0Gemfile
RubyGemsjson_schemer—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake>= 13.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc~> 6.15Gemfile
RubyGemsreline—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.12Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.84.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rake~> 0.7.1Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec~> 3.9.0Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov—Gemfile
RubyGemsvcr—Gemfile
RubyGemswebmock~> 3.25Gemfile
RubyGemsfast-mcp—Gemfile
RubyGemspuma—Gemfile
RubyGemsrack—Gemfile
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.