Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 17:50 UTC

rails / jquery-rails

A gem to automate using jQuery with Rails

RubyMIT★ 945 stars⑂ 408 forksgrowth anomalysince May 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolPluginNetwork servicehow this is determined

rails/jquery-rails holds a health index of 47 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). It was last updated 325 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

47
overall / 100
Weak

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.

47
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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ruby on RailsOrganization
2,713 followers130 public repossince Apr 2008

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsjquery-rails4.6.1-79325 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

25At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 325 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
4.3/18Commit volume — 2 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_year2
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push325
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 74 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 325 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~348.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count74
latest_release_tagv4.6.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release325
mean_days_between_releases348.5
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29/60Stars — 945 stars, discounted for inorganic growth: 250 stars over 1 day(s) from 2011-05-24, 250× the repository's own daily baseline
13/25Forks — 408 forks, discounted for inorganic growth: 250 stars over 1 day(s) from 2011-05-24, 250× the repository's own daily baseline
8.4/15Watchers — 33 watchers
Inputs used
forks408
stars945
watchers33
growth_stateanomalous
growth_signalsacquisition_burst, fork_divergence, missing_decay
growth_windows2011-05-24/2011-05-24
growth_peak_days1
growth_factor_pct60
growth_peak_stars250
growth_peak_window2011-05-24
growth_peak_multiple250
growth_top_days_share0.278
growth_baseline_per_day1
growth_history_completeyes
Inorganic Growth Policy discounts the stars and forks components by 40%. The finding describes the timing of public star and fork events; it does not establish that attention was purchased, or that the maintainers were involved.
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 310,784,531 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjquery-rails
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads310,784,531
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?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 65 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 58 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled65
top_contributor_share0.26
How it's scored
38.3/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
14.9/30PR acceptance — 70/141 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs70
open_issues14
closed_issues146
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.912
closed_unmerged_prs71
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
0/20Verified domain
24.7/25Owner reach — 2,713 followers of rails
25/25Track record — 130 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,713
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginrails
public_repos130
account_age_days6,737
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 325 days ago
20/20Version history — 79 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjquery-rails
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish325

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/jquery-rails/4.6.1
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/jquery-rails/4.6.1
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall
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 7 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
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 58 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file 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 — 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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history — 30 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.3
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
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 — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes4,832
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

945GitHub stars
65contributors
2commits, last 12 months
325days since last push
74releases
2bus factor
14open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-04-18: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 945 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 943 ★ / 408 ⇿
943Stars
408Forks
74Releases

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 2026-04-18. 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.

The shaded band marks the burst the Inorganic Growth Policy confirmed. How growth authenticity is assessed

02004006008001,0009433542502010-082018-072026-07
Major 2Minor 10Patch 62

Each point covers 15 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 17:49 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 58 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrails—Gemfile
RubyGemsrack—Gemfile
RubyGemsjson>= 2Gemfile
RubyGemsrails~> 4.2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrack~>1.6Gemfile
RubyGemsjson~> 1.8.0Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri—Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~> 1.6.0Gemfile
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsjson—direct
RubyGemsnokogiri—direct
RubyGemsrack—direct
RubyGemsrails—direct
RubyGemsmime-types—indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing—indirect
RubyGemsrailties—indirect
RubyGemsthor—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.