Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 06:48 UTC

pludoni / pludoni_rspec

collection of all test helpers that we commonly use in our projects

RubyMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

pludoni/pludoni_rspec holds a health index of 25 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Security (42/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (17/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

25
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

25
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 31 is calibrated to 25 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

pludoni GmbHOrganization
2 followers88 public repossince Oct 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemspludoni_rspecpoints to another repo — not scored0.23-180 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

38Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

42Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
4.3/18Commit volume — 2 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year2
human_commit_share0.912
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

32At Risk
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 11 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,244 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~192.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv0.10.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1,244
mean_days_between_releases192.9
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

2Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

35Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

18Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.981

Issue & PR responsiveness

18Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
8.3/30PR acceptance — 5/18 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs5
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs13
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

73Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of pludoni
25/25Track record — 88 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginpludoni
public_repos88
account_age_days5,404
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

17Critical · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

40Weak
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

28At Risk
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 63 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories63
affected_packages8
assessed_packages35
unassessed_packages10
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 7
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 35 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 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.

23At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

11Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.3/40Legible commit history — 11 of 52 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.212
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 57
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 57 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.088
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. 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 — 0/10 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes3,344
source_files_sampled10
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
2commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • rubygems package 'pludoni_rspec' points at a different repository (https://github.com/pludoni/rspec_include); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.8 / 10
2.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 06:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities63 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 45 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemscapybara—indirect
RubyGemscapybara3.38.0indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.2.2indirect
RubyGemscuprite—indirect
RubyGemscuprite0.14.3indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsferrum0.13indirect
RubyGemsheadless—indirect
RubyGemsheadless2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsmatrix0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.1indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.8indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.14.2indirect
RubyGemspry0.14.2indirect
RubyGemspry-rails—indirect
RubyGemspry-rails0.3.9indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix5.0.1indirect
RubyGemspuma—indirect
RubyGemspuma6.1.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsrack3.0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.12.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter—indirect
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter0.6.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura2.1.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.12.3indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.8.1indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.7.5indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemsxpath3.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 35 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
puma6.1.1indirectcritical58.0.2
addressable2.8.1indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.2.2indirecthigh31.3.7
nokogiri1.14.2indirecthigh181.19.4
rack3.0.4.2indirecthigh243.2.6
rexml3.2.5indirecthigh63.3.9
webrick1.8.1indirecthigh21.8.2
websocket-driver0.7.5indirecthigh40.8.2

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with pludoni/pludoni_rspec. Read them side by side →

100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional99decidim/decidimThe participatory democracy framework. A generator and multiple gems made with Ruby on RailsExceptional99newrelic/newrelic-ruby-agentNew Relic RPM Ruby AgentExceptional99stripe/stripe-react-nativeReact Native library for Stripe.Exceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐Star us on GitHubExceptional

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 statistics — RubyGems.