Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 05:57 UTC

r-uby-dev / llm

Ruby's capable AI runtime

RubyMIT★ 139 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

r-uby-dev/llm holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

r.uby.devOrganization
7 followers7 public repossince Mar 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsllm.rb15.1.0-10515 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,958 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,958
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year48
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 98 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 15 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count98
latest_release_tagv15.1.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release15
mean_days_between_releases4.3
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34.7/60Stars — 139 stars
7/25Forks — 8 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars139
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.5/80Total downloads — 111,716 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesllm.rb
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads111,716
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?

58Moderate · 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
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.94
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance — 119/133 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs119
open_issues2
closed_issues31
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.939
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
6.5/25Owner reach — 7 followers of r-uby-dev
9.5/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginr-uby-dev
public_repos7
account_age_days543

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 15 days ago
20/20Version history — 105 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesllm.rb
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish15

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

93Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://r.uby.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 18 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, llm, llm-agents, llm-framework, llm-frameworks, llms, ruby-lib, ruby-library, a2a, a2a-client, agent2agent, mcp, mcp-client, rag, ruby, ai-runtime, agent, agents
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://r.uby.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 — 30 commit(s) and 15 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 — no SAST tool detected
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages26
affected_by_severitynone
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 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 26 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — docs/deepdive/fundamentals/agents.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.3/40Legible commit history — 68 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.68
agent_instruction_filesdocs/deepdive/fundamentals/agents.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes9,361
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/404 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes32,556
source_files_sampled404
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

139GitHub stars
6contributors
1,958commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
98releases
1bus factor
2open issues
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 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks
97Releases

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.

02468812024-102025-092026-08
Major 15Minor 55Patch 27

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 05:56 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
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 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemscgi~> 0.4.2Gemfile
RubyGemsoj—Gemfile
RubyGemsyajl-ruby—Gemfile
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 25 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemscgi—direct
RubyGemsoj—direct
RubyGemsyajl-ruby—direct
RubyGemsactiverecord—indirect
RubyGemsasync—indirect
RubyGemscurb—indirect
RubyGemscurses—indirect
RubyGemsdotenv—indirect
RubyGemsirb—indirect
RubyGemskramdown—indirect
RubyGemslogger—indirect
RubyGemsnet-http-persistent—indirect
RubyGemsopentelemetry-sdk—indirect
RubyGemspg—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsredcarpet—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.84.2indirect
RubyGemssequel—indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—indirect
RubyGemsstandard1.54.0indirect
RubyGemstest-cmd.rb—indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width—indirect
RubyGemsvcr—indirect
RubyGemswebmock—indirect
RubyGemswebrick—indirect
RubyGemsxchan.rb—indirect
RubyGemsyard—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 26 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 — RubyGems.