Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-11 05:26 UTC

percy / percy-capybara

Visual testing for Capybara with Percy.

RubyMIT★ 44 stars⑂ 22 forkssince May 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

percy/percy-capybara holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Security (76/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (56/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts 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

PercyOrganization
94 followers117 public repossince May 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemspercy-capybara5.0.1-860 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume17 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year17
human_commit_share0.6
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases73 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~213.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count73
latest_release_tagv5.0.2.pre.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases213.5
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
26.5/60Stars44 stars
11/25Forks22 forks
4.7/15Watchers8 watchers
Inputs used
forks22
stars44
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.9/80Total downloads3,387,306 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespercy-capybara
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads3,387,306
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 61% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth23 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.608
How it's scored
40.9/42Issue resolution97% of issues closed
13.2/30PR acceptance141/321 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 21/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs141
open_issues1
closed_issues38
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.974
closed_unmerged_prs180
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
14.2/25Owner reach94 followers of percy
25/25Track record117 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers94
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginpercy
public_repos117
account_age_days4,115
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history86 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespercy-capybara
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests18 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.percy.io/docs/capybara
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspercy, percy-capybara, capybara, rails, ruby, visual-testing, percy-agent, percy-sdk
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.percy.io/docs/capybara
docs_sitehttps://docs.percy.io/docs/capybara
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

76Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests18 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 21/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
3/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities70 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories70
affected_packages5
assessed_packages61
unassessed_packages8
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 3
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 61 resolved dependencies against OSV. 8 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.

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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.2/40Legible commit history43 of 60 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.717
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice12 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance40 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.12
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.4
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes18,036
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

44GitHub stars
23contributors
17commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
73releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, 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 ★ / 22 ⇿
0Stars
22Forks
55Releases

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.

048121620242222015-092020-082025-07
Major 5Minor 14Patch 29

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-11 05:25 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
6CI-Tests18 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 21/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
6SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities70 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsguard-rspecGemfile
All dependencies 69

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsguard-rspec4.7.3direct
npm@percy/cli^1.31.15-beta.0indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsarchive-zip0.12.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.2indirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemscapybaraindirect
RubyGemscapybara3.36.0indirect
RubyGemschildprocess4.1.0indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemscrack0.4.5indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsffi1.15.5indirect
RubyGemsformatador1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgeckodriver-binindirect
RubyGemsgeckodriver-bin0.28.0indirect
RubyGemsguard2.18.0indirect
RubyGemsguard-compat1.2.1indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsio-like0.3.1indirect
RubyGemsjaro_winkler1.5.4indirect
RubyGemslisten3.7.1indirect
RubyGemslumberjack1.2.8indirect
RubyGemsmatrix0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.0indirect
RubyGemsnenv0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.2indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.13.3indirect
RubyGemsnotiffany0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.22.1indirect
RubyGemsparser3.1.1.0indirect
RubyGemspercy-styleindirect
RubyGemspercy-style0.7.0indirect
RubyGemspry0.14.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.6indirect
RubyGemspuma5.6.6indirect
RubyGemsracc1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsrack-test1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.10.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.5indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop0.77.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec1.37.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.11.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsselenium-webdriverindirect
RubyGemsselenium-webdriver4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsshellany0.0.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.21.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.12.3indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsthor1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.6.1indirect
RubyGemswebmock3.14.0indirect
RubyGemsxpath3.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 61 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 8 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
puma5.6.6indirectcritical58.0.2
rack2.2.3indirectcritical323.2.6
addressable2.8.0indirecthigh12.9.0
nokogiri1.13.3indirecthigh261.19.4
rexml3.2.5indirecthigh63.3.9

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.