Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 12:22 UTC

puppetlabs / puppet-data-service

Puppet Data Service - SolArch implementation of the PDS

Ruby · Go · MakefileNo license detected★ 4 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Nov 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

puppetlabs/puppet-data-service holds a health index of 30 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (77/100) and lowest on Vitality (22/100). It was last updated 1401 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

30
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.

30
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PuppetOrganization · verified domain
429 followers727 public repossince Mar 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/puppetlabs/puppet-data-servicev0.1.2-71587 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

22At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 1,401 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push1,401
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,587 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~20 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.1.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,587
mean_days_between_releases20

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars — 4 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars4
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.496
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.6/30PR acceptance — 73/74 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs73
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
18.9/25Owner reach — 429 followers of puppetlabs
25/25Track record — 727 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers429
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginpuppetlabs
public_repos727
account_age_days6,006
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,587 days ago
20/20Version history — 7 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/puppetlabs/puppet-data-service
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,587

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall
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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet-data-service
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsself-service, puppet-data-service, experimental
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet-data-service
docs_sitehttps://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet-data-service
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 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
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
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
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 54 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
4.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 4 affected: puma 5.6.4 (critical 9.8), activerecord 6.1.6.1 (high 8.8), sinatra 2.2.0 (high 8.8), +1 more
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
21.4/40No advisories left outstanding — 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,379 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories52
affected_packages7
assessed_packages36
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 6
direct_affected_packages4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 36 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.

41Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.9/40Legible commit history — 23 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.242
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, golang/pds-cli/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock, go.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, golang/pds-cli/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgolang/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
53.3/55Manageable file sizes — 1/33 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes68,108
source_files_sampled33
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — app/openapi.yaml
0/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesapp/openapi.yaml
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

4GitHub stars
5contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,401days since last push
7releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Go, 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 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
2Releases

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.

1223344422022-022023-052024-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 2

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 12:22 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 6/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities54 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemswebrick~> 1.7app/Gemfile
RubyGemspuma~> 5.6app/Gemfile
RubyGemssinatra~> 2.2app/Gemfile
RubyGemssinatra-cross_origin~> 0.4app/Gemfile
RubyGemssinatra-contrib~> 2.2app/Gemfile
RubyGemscommittee~> 4.4app/Gemfile
RubyGemspg~> 1.2app/Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 13.0app/Gemfile
RubyGemssinatra-activerecord~> 2.0app/Gemfile
RubyGemsactiverecord~> 6.1app/Gemfile
RubyGemscomposite_primary_keys~> 13.0app/Gemfile
Gogithub.com/deepmap/oapi-codegenv1.12.2golang/go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.6.1golang/go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.5golang/go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.13.0golang/go.mod
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 21 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/deepmap/oapi-codegen1.12.2direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobra1.6.1direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflag1.0.5direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/viper1.13.0direct
RubyGemsactiverecord6.1.6.1direct
RubyGemscommittee4.4.0direct
RubyGemscomposite_primary_keys13.0.3direct
RubyGemspg1.2.3direct
RubyGemspuma5.6.4direct
RubyGemsrake13.0.6direct
RubyGemssinatra2.2.0direct
RubyGemssinatra-activerecord2.0.25direct
RubyGemssinatra-contrib2.2.0direct
RubyGemssinatra-cross_origin0.4.0direct
RubyGemswebrick1.7.0direct
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotify1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/afero1.9.2indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel6.1.6.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport6.1.6.1indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.10indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsjson_schema0.21.0indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.16.2indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.15.0indirect
RubyGemsmustermann1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.8indirect
RubyGemsopenapi_parser0.15.0indirect
RubyGemspry0.14.1indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrack-protection2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemstilt2.0.10indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.4indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.6.0indirect
Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 36 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 4 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
puma5.6.4directcritical58.0.2
activerecord6.1.6.1directhigh38.0.2.1
sinatra2.2.0directhigh34.2.0
webrick1.7.0directhigh21.8.2
activesupport6.1.6.1indirecthigh68.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.1.10indirecthigh31.3.7
rack2.2.3.1indirecthigh303.2.6

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 — Go.